It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.
@Foxy is correct: it's priced in. Corbyn is a mad old Lefty who likes espousing bien-pensant fashionable causes because crazy fool. This is not news. Saying he's a hypocritical anti-semite was informative the first few times. But after the first couple of thousand repetitions it's become counterproductive.
Bibi's intervention was definitely counter-productive. British people don't like being told what to think by despised foreign leaders. The UK public generally doesn't care if Corbyn sympathises with Hamas; they know he tends to support the underdog.
Voting choice is mostly determined by domestic issues, or foreign policy issues that have a direct impact (such as Brexit and overseas interventions).
As for the EU, why doesn't someone just emanate previous distinguished leaders and just say "Non, Non, Non". No deal would be a good deal for the EU.
Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.
Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction. That's the difference. Brexit was not "started in America" nor foisted on us by Brussels. Gordon Brown led the international response to the GFC. Theresa May is leading what exactly?
It's a bit rich to blame Theresa May for Brexit, even if you do think it's a Conservative concoction (a remarkable stretch in itself, given that there was a referendum).
Gordon Brown led nothing. His government reacted - late - to the crisis, and in the end did what every single government in its position would have had to do, thanks to Darling. And, whilst it is true that the crisis 'started in America', and was a world crisis, Gordon Brown bears a lot of the responsibility for the fact that the UK was so badly hit; it was precisely his destruction of the financial supervision system which was the cause of that. For 150 years, before Brown, the UK had never had a bank run or a systemic crisis threatening the banking system, despite two world wars, the Great Depression, the banking crises of the late nineteenth century, the secondary banking crisis, the oil price crisis, etc. But he thought he knew better, took overall responsibility away from the Bank of England, and gave it to.. no-one.
What's more, he was warned, in terms, of how stupid this was. We should never forget Peter Lilley's prophetic words from 1997.
It was Brown who led the response, and although you are probably right other countries would have responded in the same way eventually, surely that just means Brown was right about what needed to be done.
The reason Britain was so badly hit had sod all to do with financial supervision but was simply because we had (and have) a relatively large financial services sector.
It takes a certain kind of stupid to end regulation of the financial services sector when, as you admit, the UK has such a relatively large financial services sector.
Yep, Gordon Brown was that kind of stupid.
And Cameron and Osborne, at the time, were shouting out about more de-regulation of financial services, which thankfully, Brown ignored. The political consensus of the time was that the financial services sector was vibrant, established and well run. If any one had dared to suggest that it was out of control and running at high speed into a cataclysmic crash, the Daily Mail /Telegraph /Murdoch news would have destroyed them with sarcasm and satire.
It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.
@Foxy is correct: it's priced in. Corbyn is a mad old Lefty who likes espousing bien-pensant fashionable causes because crazy fool. This is not news. Saying he's a hypocritical anti-semite was informative the first few times. But after the first couple of thousand repetitions it's become counterproductive.
Bibi's intervention was definitely counter-productive. British people don't like being told what to think by despised foreign leaders. The UK public generally doesn't care if Corbyn sympathises with Hamas; they know he tends to support the underdog.
Voting choice is mostly determined by domestic issues, or foreign policy issues that have a direct impact (such as Brexit and overseas interventions).
As for the EU, why doesn't someone just emanate previous distinguished leaders and just say "Non, Non, Non". No deal would be a good deal for the EU.
I suspect Netanyahu's intervention was more for his domestic political situation.
And Cameron and Osborne, at the time, were shouting out about more de-regulation of financial services, which thankfully, Brown ignored.
This David Cameron?
David Cameron, speech entitled "Bringing law and order to the financial markets" , March 24, 2009:
"Our approach is to cut regulation where the problem is too much of it - like the red tape that is strangling small business. And to reform it where the problem is the wrong kind - like the failed system of financial regulation."
And this Gordon Brown?
Gordon Brown, Mansion House speech, June 2006:
"In 2003, just at the time of a previous Mansion House speech, the Worldcom accounting scandal broke. And I will be honest with you, many who advised me including not a few newspapers, favoured a regulatory crackdown.
I believe that we were right not to go down that road which in the United States led to Sarbannes-Oxley, and we were right to build upon our light touch system through the leadership of Sir Callum McCarthy - fair, proportionate, predictable and increasingly risk based."
and
Gordon Brown, Mansion House speech, June 2007:
"So I congratulate you Lord Mayor and the City of London on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London.
I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created."
and
Gordon Brown, Better Regulation Action Plan, 2005:
"In a risk based approach there is no inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification. Not just a light touch but a limited touch. Instead of routine regulation attempting to cover all, we adopt a risk based approach which targets only the necessary few.
A risk based approach helps move us a million miles away from the old assumption - the assumption since the first legislation of Victorian times - that business, unregulated, will invariably act irresponsibly. The better view is that businesses want to act responsibly. Reputation with customers and investors is more important to behaviour than regulation, and transparency - backed up by the light touch - can be more effective than the heavy hand."
and (this is a gem!)
Gordon Brown, speech at the opening of Lehman Brothers EU headquarters, April 2004:
"I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain. During its one hundred and fifty year history, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many others even began to realise their potential...."
So the Remainers on this site are very fond of pointing out that there are no benefits from Brexit and that we have the best possible deal now and that Leavers are swivel-eyed loons for suggesting that there can be any advantages etc etc.
Bit embarrassing then that the EU are now saying that regulatory divergence from the UK just on services would potentially cut EU GDP by 8-9% over 15 years. If there are no benefits from Brexit, why would they care if the UK diverges?
Or is this simply proof of what Leavers have been saying all along - the EU single market is an inefficient protectionist construct and the EU's entire negotiating aim in Brexit is to hold the UK in the EU's regulatory orbit because they know that a clean Brexit would make the UK far more competitive than the EU....
It hurts us more than it hurts them doesn't count as a "benefit". Also if both parties lose out on leaving, that suggests the Single Market DOES bring benefits and is the opposite of an "inefficient protectionist construct".
So the Remainers on this site are very fond of pointing out that there are no benefits from Brexit and that we have the best possible deal now and that Leavers are swivel-eyed loons for suggesting that there can be any advantages etc etc.
Bit embarrassing then that the EU are now saying that regulatory divergence from the UK just on services would potentially cut EU GDP by 8-9% over 15 years. If there are no benefits from Brexit, why would they care if the UK diverges?
Or is this simply proof of what Leavers have been saying all along - the EU single market is an inefficient protectionist construct and the EU's entire negotiating aim in Brexit is to hold the UK in the EU's regulatory orbit because they know that a clean Brexit would make the UK far more competitive than the EU....
It hurts us more than it hurts them doesn't count as a "benefit". Also if both parties lose out on leaving, that suggests the Single Market DOES bring benefits and is the opposite of an "inefficient protectionist construct".
It doesn't say that the UK will lose out. It is not talking about a no deal scenario - it is talking about a deal where we stay aligned in goods and diverge in services. It is saying that the EU will lose out specifically because the UK will be able to become more competitive.
So the Remainers on this site are very fond of pointing out that there are no benefits from Brexit and that we have the best possible deal now and that Leavers are swivel-eyed loons for suggesting that there can be any advantages etc etc.
Bit embarrassing then that the EU are now saying that regulatory divergence from the UK just on services would potentially cut EU GDP by 8-9% over 15 years. If there are no benefits from Brexit, why would they care if the UK diverges?
Or is this simply proof of what Leavers have been saying all along - the EU single market is an inefficient protectionist construct and the EU's entire negotiating aim in Brexit is to hold the UK in the EU's regulatory orbit because they know that a clean Brexit would make the UK far more competitive than the EU....
It hurts us more than it hurts them doesn't count as a "benefit". Also if both parties lose out on leaving, that suggests the Single Market DOES bring benefits and is the opposite of an "inefficient protectionist construct".
It doesn't say that the UK will lose out. It is not talking about a no deal scenario - it is talking about a deal where we stay aligned in goods and diverge in services. It is saying that the EU will lose out specifically because the UK will be able to become more competitive.
I know, it must hurt....
I don’t think that article means what you think it means.
So the Remainers on this site are very fond of pointing out that there are no benefits from Brexit and that we have the best possible deal now and that Leavers are swivel-eyed loons for suggesting that there can be any advantages etc etc.
Bit embarrassing then that the EU are now saying that regulatory divergence from the UK just on services would potentially cut EU GDP by 8-9% over 15 years. If there are no benefits from Brexit, why would they care if the UK diverges?
Or is this simply proof of what Leavers have been saying all along - the EU single market is an inefficient protectionist construct and the EU's entire negotiating aim in Brexit is to hold the UK in the EU's regulatory orbit because they know that a clean Brexit would make the UK far more competitive than the EU....
It hurts us more than it hurts them doesn't count as a "benefit". Also if both parties lose out on leaving, that suggests the Single Market DOES bring benefits and is the opposite of an "inefficient protectionist construct".
They're complaining that we can be more competitive if we diverge.
After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.
As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.
Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?
I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.
He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.
Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.
Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.
He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.
His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.
Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.
I think the one thing May has over Brown (as far as public perceptions go) is that people still feel that, at heart, she's a decent, fairly modest person trying her best. Even when she's being spectacularly crap or getting tons of attacks from her colleagues in government, people still have a bit of sympathy for her, even if they think she's useless.
By contrast, people thought Brown was useless AND arrogant, which meant he threw away the "sympathy" card even when things were really bad for him (a bit like Hillary).
As Dr Fox pointed out, she was "decent" towards the Windrush people. Oh, really ? She has a vert nasty streak in her.
And those "go home" vans, which were her idea, were both unpleasant and idiotic.
After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.
As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.
Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?
I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.
He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.
Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.
But Major won an election...
Indeed. Against all odds. A remarkable achievement, underestimated by many.
The most plausible working hypothesis for the next election is a re-run of 1992.
So the Remainers on this site are very fond of pointing out that there are no benefits from Brexit and that we have the best possible deal now and that Leavers are swivel-eyed loons for suggesting that there can be any advantages etc etc.
Bit embarrassing then that the EU are now saying that regulatory divergence from the UK just on services would potentially cut EU GDP by 8-9% over 15 years. If there are no benefits from Brexit, why would they care if the UK diverges?
Or is this simply proof of what Leavers have been saying all along - the EU single market is an inefficient protectionist construct and the EU's entire negotiating aim in Brexit is to hold the UK in the EU's regulatory orbit because they know that a clean Brexit would make the UK far more competitive than the EU....
It hurts us more than it hurts them doesn't count as a "benefit". Also if both parties lose out on leaving, that suggests the Single Market DOES bring benefits and is the opposite of an "inefficient protectionist construct".
It doesn't say that the UK will lose out. It is not talking about a no deal scenario - it is talking about a deal where we stay aligned in goods and diverge in services. It is saying that the EU will lose out specifically because the UK will be able to become more competitive.
I know, it must hurt....
You don't seem to understand the concept of a mutual benefit. Doubtless why you are such a rabid leaver (on behalf of others) in the first place.
I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.
The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.
It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.
More is less. I think there was some genuine concern over the anti-semitism issue, and it's affected his personal rating, as Carlotta points out, but the drumbeat of relatively trivial stories to follow up - "look, here's a picture showing he was once next to someone you don't know but was nasty" - have distracted rather than reinforced attention.
Most of us, surely including many Mail readers, are just skipping the detail of the stories now. It's the same mistake by the Tory press as when the Sun (?) did 14 pages attacking him during the 2017 election - I really doubt if as many as 10% of their readers ploughed through them all, and the message "my paper really doesn't like Corbyn" must have been factored in years ago.
I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.
The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.
It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.
Part of the explanation may be that we live in the Facebook age when digging out old photos from the distant past is seen as playing dirty.
I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.
The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.
It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.
Part of the explanation may be that we live in the Facebook age when digging out old photos from the distant past is seen as playing dirty.
A trip by Boris Johnson to Afghanistan on the day of the government’s key vote on Heathrow expansion cost taxpayers nearly £20,000, official figures have revealed.
An expensive way to dodge a promise! Still, he might get the chance to lie in front of the bulldozers; at the likely pace of the project he may well be retired from politics by then.
A trip by Boris Johnson to Afghanistan on the day of the government’s key vote on Heathrow expansion cost taxpayers nearly £20,000, official figures have revealed.
An expensive way to dodge a promise! Still, he might get the chance to lie in front of the bulldozers; at the likely pace of the project he may well be retired from politics by then.
Will he be standing when he lies in front of the bulldozers?
It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.
@Foxy is correct: it's priced in. Corbyn is a mad old Lefty who likes espousing bien-pensant fashionable causes because crazy fool. This is not news. Saying he's a hypocritical anti-semite was informative the first few times. But after the first couple of thousand repetitions it's become counterproductive.
Bibi's intervention was definitely counter-productive. British people don't like being told what to think by despised foreign leaders. The UK public generally doesn't care if Corbyn sympathises with Hamas; they know he tends to support the underdog.
Voting choice is mostly determined by domestic issues, or foreign policy issues that have a direct impact (such as Brexit and overseas interventions).
As for the EU, why doesn't someone just emanate previous distinguished leaders and just say "Non, Non, Non". No deal would be a good deal for the EU.
I doubt if more than a tiny minority of British voters noticed Bibi's intervention, or even know what Bibi means.
The pound has endured its longest losing streak against the dollar since the financial crisis a decade ago because of mounting fears that the UK will crash out of the European Union in March and amid signs that the economy is struggling to gather momentum.
Sterling has fallen for 12 consecutive trading sessions, dipping 0.3 per cent to as low as $1.2689 yesterday, its weakest since June 2017. The last time the currency fell for 12 days running was in August 2008, weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust, tipping the global economy into recession.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.
The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.
It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.
More is less. I think there was some genuine concern over the anti-semitism issue, and it's affected his personal rating, as Carlotta points out, but the drumbeat of relatively trivial stories to follow up - "look, here's a picture showing he was once next to someone you don't know but was nasty" - have distracted rather than reinforced attention.
Most of us, surely including many Mail readers, are just skipping the detail of the stories now. It's the same mistake by the Tory press as when the Sun (?) did 14 pages attacking him during the 2017 election - I really doubt if as many as 10% of their readers ploughed through them all, and the message "my paper really doesn't like Corbyn" must have been factored in years ago.
Yes It’s already priced in that Corbyn as a backbencher did this sort of thing. Arguably this sort of story underlines that Corbyn is not a mainstream politician, which is one of his strengths. He feeds off being an outsider. So whilst all this is damaging and highly dubious, it’s not fatal.
If you wanted to really damage Corbyn, you would have him photographed at a bank or sharing a platform with Tories. It’s a shame there is not a photo in the Tory lobbies where he spent a lot of the last Labour govt.
I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.
The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.
It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.
More is less. I think there was some genuine concern over the anti-semitism issue, and it's affected his personal rating, as Carlotta points out, but the drumbeat of relatively trivial stories to follow up - "look, here's a picture showing he was once next to someone you don't know but was nasty" - have distracted rather than reinforced attention.
Most of us, surely including many Mail readers, are just skipping the detail of the stories now. It's the same mistake by the Tory press as when the Sun (?) did 14 pages attacking him during the 2017 election - I really doubt if as many as 10% of their readers ploughed through them all, and the message "my paper really doesn't like Corbyn" must have been factored in years ago.
You are right, Corbyn has spent large parts of his life mixing and sympathising with terrorists and murderers, apparently in pursuit of peace and the public are used to that now.
I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.
The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.
It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.
More is less. I think there was some genuine concern over the anti-semitism issue, and it's affected his personal rating, as Carlotta points out, but the drumbeat of relatively trivial stories to follow up - "look, here's a picture showing he was once next to someone you don't know but was nasty" - have distracted rather than reinforced attention.
Most of us, surely including many Mail readers, are just skipping the detail of the stories now. It's the same mistake by the Tory press as when the Sun (?) did 14 pages attacking him during the 2017 election - I really doubt if as many as 10% of their readers ploughed through them all, and the message "my paper really doesn't like Corbyn" must have been factored in years ago.
What's your view of it all, Nick? The associations, wreaths, "peace maker", etc?
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, he supported that, he is a complete moral reprobate and not fit to hold the office. How could you possibly vote for him?
Such attacks certainly stir up those who already think he is morally contemptible. I have been disgusted by recent revelations but in truth they rank somewhat lower than his vile, near treasonous behaviour with the IRA. It hasn't changed my mind or made me less likely to vote for him. That was never going to happen even before.
The effect on those who don't hold him in such contempt is much less marked. There is some evidence that his personal rating has fallen somewhat but whether that is because of the accusations or the fact that Labour once again looks like a disorganised, incoherent, disunited mess is hard to say. What I think is clear is that the lesson of 2017 has still not been learned. There is a law of diminishing returns on this stuff and we are a long way down the curve.
The pound has endured its longest losing streak against the dollar since the financial crisis a decade ago because of mounting fears that the UK will crash out of the European Union in March and amid signs that the economy is struggling to gather momentum.
Sterling has fallen for 12 consecutive trading sessions, dipping 0.3 per cent to as low as $1.2689 yesterday, its weakest since June 2017. The last time the currency fell for 12 days running was in August 2008, weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust, tipping the global economy into recession.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
It’s very odd, isn’t it. Unemployment appears to be low, yet people are still having to turn to foodbanks, homelessness is is rising, and wages in the middle and below are stagnant.
Services are being cut ‘because they’re unaffordable’ left right and centre.
Something's very wrong with the current economic model
If you wanted to really damage Corbyn, you would have him photographed at a bank or sharing a platform with Tories. It’s a shame there is not a photo in the Tory lobbies where he spent a lot of the last Labour govt.
Recordings of him supporting privatising the NHS or revelations that he is actually a Non-Exec on the board at BAE would be pretty disastrous I reckon!
The pound has endured its longest losing streak against the dollar since the financial crisis a decade ago because of mounting fears that the UK will crash out of the European Union in March and amid signs that the economy is struggling to gather momentum.
Sterling has fallen for 12 consecutive trading sessions, dipping 0.3 per cent to as low as $1.2689 yesterday, its weakest since June 2017. The last time the currency fell for 12 days running was in August 2008, weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust, tipping the global economy into recession.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
The fall against the dollar is almost entirely a reflection of the dollar's strength rather than Sterling's weakness. Against the Euro we are almost exactly where we were in February, off recent highs but basically stable.
Trump's bull in a china shop approach to international trade is causing mayhem in developing economies. The focus has been on Turkey but it is far more widespread than that and a lot of money is pouring out of these economies into the safe haven of the dollar driving up its value. Keep an eye on Brazil. Brexit is a sideshow to all this.
All these economic indicators create a challenging baseline for Brexit. Before we left the EU inflation was low, interest rates were low, unemployment was low....
King Cole, some service cuts are due to the ageing population and the PFI chickens coming home to roost.
As I’m part of the aging population I suppose you’re saying I should take responsibility?
I always thought PFI was a bad idea. Especially after a friend of mine was called on to advise on the operation of the pharmacy dept of a new hospital and opined that whoever designed it had no idea of the departments operational needs.
The pound has endured its longest losing streak against the dollar since the financial crisis a decade ago because of mounting fears that the UK will crash out of the European Union in March and amid signs that the economy is struggling to gather momentum.
Sterling has fallen for 12 consecutive trading sessions, dipping 0.3 per cent to as low as $1.2689 yesterday, its weakest since June 2017. The last time the currency fell for 12 days running was in August 2008, weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust, tipping the global economy into recession.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
It’s very odd, isn’t it. Unemployment appears to be low, yet people are still having to turn to foodbanks, homelessness is is rising, and wages in the middle and below are stagnant.
Services are being cut ‘because they’re unaffordable’ left right and centre.
Something's very wrong with the current economic model
We have been living beyond our means for a long time, paying ourselves more than we were earning and making up the shortfall in debt. This has been a public and private sector problem.
The sad truth is that this is still going on but not to the same extent. We have not yet learned to control our expenditure to what we earn, hence the poor savings ratio and the enormous trade deficit, and, more disappointingly, we have been very unsuccessful in increasing output by productivity. The latest figures did contain a jump in productivity but whether this is a blip or the start of a very necessary change is unclear.
There is also the question of the allocation of the cake. Overall our gini coefficient has fallen and there was that chart linked to on here recently showing that we were the only EU country where inequality had fallen across all age groups. And yet we have the 11% increase for FTSE bosses to an average of £4m. It is a pity in some respects that we are missing an opposition to ask questions about that. But I am sure Labour has more important things to do.
So the Remainers on this site are very fond of pointing out that there are no benefits from Brexit and that we have the best possible deal now and that Leavers are swivel-eyed loons for suggesting that there can be any advantages etc etc.
Bit embarrassing then that the EU are now saying that regulatory divergence from the UK just on services would potentially cut EU GDP by 8-9% over 15 years. If there are no benefits from Brexit, why would they care if the UK diverges?
Or is this simply proof of what Leavers have been saying all along - the EU single market is an inefficient protectionist construct and the EU's entire negotiating aim in Brexit is to hold the UK in the EU's regulatory orbit because they know that a clean Brexit would make the UK far more competitive than the EU....
It hurts us more than it hurts them doesn't count as a "benefit". Also if both parties lose out on leaving, that suggests the Single Market DOES bring benefits and is the opposite of an "inefficient protectionist construct".
It doesn't say that the UK will lose out. It is not talking about a no deal scenario - it is talking about a deal where we stay aligned in goods and diverge in services. It is saying that the EU will lose out specifically because the UK will be able to become more competitive.
I know, it must hurt....
Fair cop. The danger of basing my comment on a free snippet of an article rather.than the article itself, which I have now read. Stephanie Rico's claim is that a large part of "goods" by value relate to services and production and would not be covered by the Chequers Agreement, but the EU would be obliged to accept those goods on an equal basis. Whether you think it's a protectionist construct depends on whether you think that regulation has value. It doesn't help us if the EU refuses to play ball. It would be astonishing if did allow imports to.be less regulated than domestic production.
What's your view of it all, Nick? The associations, wreaths, "peace maker", etc?
I think he took the view that his career was to be a backbencher being helpful to Third World underdogs against American imperialism, and that that would in the long run do more for peace and fairness than plunging into whatever wars the US wanted us to get into (I took a different view over Iraq and Afghanistan and have come to feel he was right). I doubt if he spent a lot of time weighing up the impact of this or that event, let alone analysing the exact positions of everyone else attending (as an MP you really don't unless someone disgusting stands out when you glance at the invite) - he just attended if asked and said what he thought. But I don't think he's remotely anti-semitic and the suggestion that he's pro-KKK was just silly. Virtually none of the accusations relate to anything he said - they're all about attending X or appearing on Y.
As an unexpected party leader he has to be more careful and there's a reason that most of this stuff reaches back years, even decades into the past. But I agree with his basic outlook and as a former MP I'm sympathetic to MPs generally who find themselves in awkward photos- over the years you really can't avoid it (and I've taken a similar view of some of the Tory difficulties too). Which private individuals would be willing to have photos of every situation they've been in for the last 30 years? I know that MPs are supposed to be more careful, but if you think you'll always be a backbencher then you generally aren't that watchful all the time.
King Cole, no. It's not your fault. Any more than baby boomers are responsible for being born into a good lifetime (economically) or younger adults today are responsible for struggling to get on the housing ladder. But an ageing population is a fact, and one that increases demand for social and medical services.
Limited PFI in some areas like bridge construction seems to make sense. For wholesale hospital and school construction and maintenance it seems like an idiotic fiddle to keep spending off the books whilst lumbering the taxpayer with decades of vastly inflated costs.
The pound has endured its longest losing streak against the dollar since the financial crisis a decade ago because of mounting fears that the UK will crash out of the European Union in March and amid signs that the economy is struggling to gather momentum.
Sterling has fallen for 12 consecutive trading sessions, dipping 0.3 per cent to as low as $1.2689 yesterday, its weakest since June 2017. The last time the currency fell for 12 days running was in August 2008, weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust, tipping the global economy into recession.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
The fall against the dollar is almost entirely a reflection of the dollar's strength rather than Sterling's weakness. Against the Euro we are almost exactly where we were in February, off recent highs but basically stable.
Trump's bull in a china shop approach to international trade is causing mayhem in developing economies. The focus has been on Turkey but it is far more widespread than that and a lot of money is pouring out of these economies into the safe haven of the dollar driving up its value. Keep an eye on Brazil. Brexit is a sideshow to all this.
There’s been a decline, although bumpy at times, against the euro since early 2016. That was after a similar rise from the last low point in late 2008.
What's your view of it all, Nick? The associations, wreaths, "peace maker", etc?
I think he took the view that his career was to be a backbencher being helpful to Third World underdogs against American imperialism, and that that would in the long run do more for peace and fairness than plunging into whatever wars the US wanted us to get into (I took a different view over Iraq and Afghanistan and have come to feel he was right). I doubt if he spent a lot of time weighing up the impact of this or that event, let alone analysing the exact positions of everyone else attending (as an MP you really don't unless someone disgusting stands out when you glance at the invite) - he just attended if asked and said what he thought. But I don't think he's remotely anti-semitic and the suggestion that he's pro-KKK was just silly. Virtually none of the accusations relate to anything he said - they're all about attending X or appearing on Y.
As an unexpected party leader he has to be more careful and there's a reason that most of this stuff reaches back years, even decades into the past. But I agree with his basic outlook and as a former MP I'm sympathetic to MPs generally who find themselves in awkward photos- over the years you really can't avoid it (and I've taken a similar view of some of the Tory difficulties too). Which private individuals would be willing to have photos of every situation they've been in for the last 30 years? I know that MPs are supposed to be more careful, but if you think you'll always be a backbencher then you generally aren't that watchful all the time.
The pound has endured its longest losing streak against the dollar since the financial crisis a decade ago because of mounting fears that the UK will crash out of the European Union in March and amid signs that the economy is struggling to gather momentum.
Sterling has fallen for 12 consecutive trading sessions, dipping 0.3 per cent to as low as $1.2689 yesterday, its weakest since June 2017. The last time the currency fell for 12 days running was in August 2008, weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust, tipping the global economy into recession.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
It’s very odd, isn’t it. Unemployment appears to be low, yet people are still having to turn to foodbanks, homelessness is is rising, and wages in the middle and below are stagnant.
Services are being cut ‘because they’re unaffordable’ left right and centre.
Something's very wrong with the current economic model
There remains a massive Public Sector Debt that has to be cleared, however in terms of wages I really think they are rising much quicker than being reported. Companies simply cannot get staff, there are vacancy notices everywhere. I do think something needs to be done about the mad high salaries for those in the upper ecehlons of Companies as these are now completely out of hand. I watched a show on Housing Associations the other day and some of their CEs earn three times as much as Theresa May, how crazy is that?
In terms of food I think it is now as cheap as it has been in my working life. In Tescos last night they had a whole range of vegetables for just 39 pence for a big bag. If you shop carefully you can easily feed yourself very well for less than £20 per week, which compared to the average wage is quite remarkable.
The pound has endured its longest losing streak against the dollar since the financial crisis a decade ago because of mounting fears that the UK will crash out of the European Union in March and amid signs that the economy is struggling to gather momentum.
Sterling has fallen for 12 consecutive trading sessions, dipping 0.3 per cent to as low as $1.2689 yesterday, its weakest since June 2017. The last time the currency fell for 12 days running was in August 2008, weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust, tipping the global economy into recession.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
It’s very odd, isn’t it. Unemployment appears to be low, yet people are still having to turn to foodbanks, homelessness is is rising, and wages in the middle and below are stagnant.
Services are being cut ‘because they’re unaffordable’ left right and centre.
Something's very wrong with the current economic model
We have been living beyond our means for a long time, paying ourselves more than we were earning and making up the shortfall in debt. This has been a public and private sector problem.
The sad truth is that this is still going on but not to the same extent. We have not yet learned to control our expenditure to what we earn, hence the poor savings ratio and the enormous trade deficit, and, more disappointingly, we have been very unsuccessful in increasing output by productivity. The latest figures did contain a jump in productivity but whether this is a blip or the start of a very necessary change is unclear.
There is also the question of the allocation of the cake. Overall our gini coefficient has fallen and there was that chart linked to on here recently showing that we were the only EU country where inequality had fallen across all age groups. And yet we have the 11% increase for FTSE bosses to an average of £4m. It is a pity in some respects that we are missing an opposition to ask questions about that. But I am sure Labour has more important things to do.
There has been far, far too much attention paid to the short-term ‘profits’ made by moving money about and far to little to those, admittedly longer term, from desogning and making ;things”.
The pound has endured its longest losing streak against the dollar since the financial crisis a decade ago because of mounting fears that the UK will crash out of the European Union in March and amid signs that the economy is struggling to gather momentum.
Sterling has fallen for 12 consecutive trading sessions, dipping 0.3 per cent to as low as $1.2689 yesterday, its weakest since June 2017. The last time the currency fell for 12 days running was in August 2008, weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust, tipping the global economy into recession.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
The fall against the dollar is almost entirely a reflection of the dollar's strength rather than Sterling's weakness. Against the Euro we are almost exactly where we were in February, off recent highs but basically stable.
Trump's bull in a china shop approach to international trade is causing mayhem in developing economies. The focus has been on Turkey but it is far more widespread than that and a lot of money is pouring out of these economies into the safe haven of the dollar driving up its value. Keep an eye on Brazil. Brexit is a sideshow to all this.
There’s been a decline, although bumpy at times, against the euro since early 2016. That was after a similar rise from the last low point in late 2008.
As Robert demonstrated with his recent blog choosing your starting point is key in these matters but a country that consistently, decade after decade, runs a significant trade deficit is going to have a weak currency. Recent events, such as the fall against the dollar Scott linked to, don't have much to do with this. It is all about Trump.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
It’s very odd, isn’t it. Unemployment appears to be low, yet people are still having to turn to foodbanks, homelessness is is rising, and wages in the middle and below are stagnant.
Services are being cut ‘because they’re unaffordable’ left right and centre.
Something's very wrong with the current economic model
We have been living beyond our means for a long time, paying ourselves more than we were earning and making up the shortfall in debt. This has been a public and private sector problem.
The sad truth is that this is still going on but not to the same extent. We have not yet learned to control our expenditure to what we earn, hence the poor savings ratio and the enormous trade deficit, and, more disappointingly, we have been very unsuccessful in increasing output by productivity. The latest figures did contain a jump in productivity but whether this is a blip or the start of a very necessary change is unclear.
There is also the question of the allocation of the cake. Overall our gini coefficient has fallen and there was that chart linked to on here recently showing that we were the only EU country where inequality had fallen across all age groups. And yet we have the 11% increase for FTSE bosses to an average of £4m. It is a pity in some respects that we are missing an opposition to ask questions about that. But I am sure Labour has more important things to do.
There has been far, far too much attention paid to the short-term ‘profits’ made by moving money about and far to little to those, admittedly longer term, from desogning and making ;things”.
I agree. But poor long term investment has been a consequence of excessive consumption and not enough saving. Diagnosis is relatively easy. The solution...not so much.
So the Remainers on this site are very fond of pointing out that there are no benefits from Brexit and that we have the best possible deal now and that Leavers are swivel-eyed loons for suggesting that there can be any advantages etc etc.
Bit embarrassing then that the EU are now saying that regulatory divergence from the UK just on services would potentially cut EU GDP by 8-9% over 15 years. If there are no benefits from Brexit, why would they care if the UK diverges?
Or is this simply proof of what Leavers have been saying all along - the EU single market is an inefficient protectionist construct and the EU's entire negotiating aim in Brexit is to hold the UK in the EU's regulatory orbit because they know that a clean Brexit would make the UK far more competitive than the EU....
It hurts us more than it hurts them doesn't count as a "benefit". Also if both parties lose out on leaving, that suggests the Single Market DOES bring benefits and is the opposite of an "inefficient protectionist construct".
It doesn't say that the UK will lose out. It is not talking about a no deal scenario - it is talking about a deal where we stay aligned in goods and diverge in services. It is saying that the EU will lose out specifically because the UK will be able to become more competitive.
I know, it must hurt....
Fair cop. The danger of basing my comment on a free snippet of an article rather.than the article itself, which I have now read. Stephanie Rico's claim is that a large part of "goods" by value relate to services and production and would not be covered by the Chequers Agreement, but the EU would be obliged to accept those goods on an equal basis. Whether you think it's a protectionist construct depends on whether you think that regulation has value. It doesn't help us if the EU refuses to play ball. It would be astonishing if did allow imports to.be less regulated than domestic production.
Interesting point however.
The EU already allows imports to be less regulated than domestic production, with respect to the EU regulatory framework. Goods imports from outside of the single market are subject to meet the product, labelling and packaging specs that the EU require. The manufacturers do not have to meet non-product specs i.e working time directives, working at height directives, etc, if their own Governments do not require it. It maybe that the regulatory regime of the host country is more onerous than the EU regime.
I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.
The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.
It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.
The tories need a better anti Corbyn strategy than: LOOK! TERRORISTS! It didn't work in 2016 and it's not working now.
It didn't and doesnt work, but it doesn't make his evasions and dissembling ok. The whinging of his followers about it all being smears, even the stuff he himself says, is disturbing.
It hurts us more than it hurts them doesn't count as a "benefit". Also if both parties lose out on leaving, that suggests the Single Market DOES bring benefits and is the opposite of an "inefficient protectionist construct".
It doesn't say that the UK will lose out. It is not talking about a no deal scenario - it is talking about a deal where we stay aligned in goods and diverge in services. It is saying that the EU will lose out specifically because the UK will be able to become more competitive.
I know, it must hurt....
Fair cop. The danger of basing my comment on a free snippet of an article rather.than the article itself, which I have now read. Stephanie Rico's claim is that a large part of "goods" by value relate to services and production and would not be covered by the Chequers Agreement, but the EU would be obliged to accept those goods on an equal basis. Whether you think it's a protectionist construct depends on whether you think that regulation has value. It doesn't help us if the EU refuses to play ball. It would be astonishing if did allow imports to.be less regulated than domestic production.
Interesting point however.
The entire basis of international trade is that countries cannot differentiate between imports based on how the goods are made. They can only differentiate if the goods do not meet local standards. For example, we can't block Chinese electronics because they are made by virtual slave labour, we can only block them if they don't meet UK product standards. As long as they do, we cannot discriminate (WTO rules).
But that is the problem with the EU. The want to impose their economic and social model on everyone (especially in Europe), not just product standards, because it is about protecting their high regulation system. And this is why the EU is becoming less and less important in global trade.
But legally, unless May trades away our rights, we can change our regulations, become more competitive and there is nothing that the EU can do about it. Which is probably why they manufactured the NI border issue...:)
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, he supported that, he is a complete moral reprobate and not fit to hold the office. How could you possibly vote for him?
Such attacks certainly stir up those who already think he is morally contemptible. I have been disgusted by recent revelations but in truth they rank somewhat lower than his vile, near treasonous behaviour with the IRA. It hasn't changed my mind or made me less likely to vote for him. That was never going to happen even before.
The effect on those who don't hold him in such contempt is much less marked. There is some evidence that his personal rating has fallen somewhat but whether that is because of the accusations or the fact that Labour once again looks like a disorganised, incoherent, disunited mess is hard to say. What I think is clear is that the lesson of 2017 has still not been learned. There is a law of diminishing returns on this stuff and we are a long way down the curve.
None of it should be forgotten, and labour mps shoukd continue to pressed for their views on it (after all if someone has done wrong thstistrue whether the polls move or not), but no-one cares enough for it to effect their vote, and the Tories need a good candidate with a positive message which chimes with people.
"a backbencher being helpful to Third World underdogs against American imperialism."
A nice gloss, but there are ways to do this. Instead of working for famine relief for instance , he has actively worked for violent overthrow, selectively choosing anywhere where there is already unrest. But then, that is what Trotsky espoused. Violent overthrow of the system world-wide, apart from those havens of peace like Venezuela, and Cambodia under Pol Pot..
The 'working for peace' label has only been a convenient shield. And it's not only American imperialism, it's anyone he defines as an oppressor. The very definition of a useful idiot.
Like you, I'm sure he's sincere. But a sincere idiot is still an idiot.
All these economic indicators create a challenging baseline for Brexit. Before we left the EU inflation was low, interest rates were low, unemployment was low....
We're bound to hit some difficult times sooner or later no matter what- another reason the Tories were always going to struggle at the next election.
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, he supported that, he is a complete moral reprobate and not fit to hold the office. How could you possibly vote for him?
Such attacks certainly stir up those who already think he is morally contemptible. I have been disgusted by recent revelations but in truth they rank somewhat lower than his vile, near treasonous behaviour with the IRA. It hasn't changed my mind or made me less likely to vote for him. That was never going to happen even before.
The effect on those who don't hold him in such contempt is much less marked. There is some evidence that his personal rating has fallen somewhat but whether that is because of the accusations or the fact that Labour once again looks like a disorganised, incoherent, disunited mess is hard to say. What I think is clear is that the lesson of 2017 has still not been learned. There is a law of diminishing returns on this stuff and we are a long way down the curve.
None of it should be forgotten, and labour mps shoukd continue to pressed for their views on it (after all if someone has done wrong thstistrue whether the polls move or not), but no-one cares enough for it to effect their vote, and the Tories need a good candidate with a positive message which chimes with people.
"A good candidate with a positive message which chimes with people". Blimey, you don't ask for much do you?
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, he supported that, he is a complete moral reprobate and not fit to hold the office. How could you possibly vote for him?
There is a law of diminishing returns on this stuff and we are a long way down the curve.
Everything she said was true, and remains so.
It didn't shift votes at the time, but what else do you suggest?
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, he supported that, he is a complete moral reprobate and not fit to hold the office. How could you possibly vote for him?
Such attacks certainly stir up those who already think he is morally contemptible. I have been disgusted by recent revelations but in truth they rank somewhat lower than his vile, near treasonous behaviour with the IRA. It hasn't changed my mind or made me less likely to vote for him. That was never going to happen even before.
The effect on those who don't hold him in such contempt is much less marked. There is some evidence that his personal rating has fallen somewhat but whether that is because of the accusations or the fact that Labour once again looks like a disorganised, incoherent, disunited mess is hard to say. What I think is clear is that the lesson of 2017 has still not been learned. There is a law of diminishing returns on this stuff and we are a long way down the curve.
None of it should be forgotten, and labour mps shoukd continue to pressed for their views on it (after all if someone has done wrong thstistrue whether the polls move or not), but no-one cares enough for it to effect their vote, and the Tories need a good candidate with a positive message which chimes with people.
What the last fortnight has exposed is the extreme lengths that Corbyn's army of supporters and his team at Labour will go to. I found the way they defended what was clearly a falsehood to be extremely chilling. Even the official press office was at it.
Imagine this lot in action when JC is PM and he does something the public don't agree with.
Mr. P, indeed. Clinton, specifically, could've won simply by using her resources sensibly instead of wasting time in California.
More generally, addressing genuine concerns that people have instead of playing the race card if they're worried about immigration (as an example) would be a good step.
The lack of reporting of the 31-strong (if memory serves) rape gang in Huddersfield just a day or two ago is also indicative of why trust in the mainstream media is in decline. Didn't see it at all on the broadcast news (read online).
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have been better if he'd remembered it all clearly or if he'd just said sorry, I remember the event but I can't recall the details. 3 out of 10 for media handling this time. But I didn't vote for him to be Alastair Campbell, and a bit of me quite likes the fact that he doesn't polish his comments with immaculate care.
Occam's Razor applies here on both sides. Because some of his critics here are sure he's an anti-semitic terrorist sympathiser, they think that it's probably an example of that. Because I'm quite sure he's neither, I assume the same sort of minor cock-up that I've experienced myself.
What's your view of it all, Nick? The associations, wreaths, "peace maker", etc?
I think he took the view that his career was to be a backbencher being helpful to Third World underdogs against American imperialism, and that that would in the long run do more for peace and fairness than plunging into whatever wars the US wanted us to get into (I took a different view over Iraq and Afghanistan and have come to feel he was right). I doubt if he spent a lot of time weighing up the impact of this or that event, let alone analysing the exact positions of everyone else attending (as an MP you really don't unless someone disgusting stands out when you glance at the invite) - he just attended if asked and said what he thought. But I don't think he's remotely anti-semitic and the suggestion that he's pro-KKK was just silly. Virtually none of the accusations relate to anything he said - they're all about attending X or appearing on Y.
As an unexpected party leader he has to be more careful and there's a reason that most of this stuff reaches back years, even decades into the past. But I agree with his basic outlook and as a former MP I'm sympathetic to MPs generally who find themselves in awkward photos- over the years you really can't avoid it (and I've taken a similar view of some of the Tory difficulties too). Which private individuals would be willing to have photos of every situation they've been in for the last 30 years? I know that MPs are supposed to be more careful, but if you think you'll always be a backbencher then you generally aren't that watchful all the time.
Do you really think this was an unlucky snap?
Why can't he just be honest about it all then? I would have more respect for him if he just came out and said 'yes, I went and I laid a wreath, because I was asked to by people I wanted to work with', or even, 'yes, I laid a wreath, because I believe these people are freedom fighters'.
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, he supported that, he is a complete moral reprobate and not fit to hold the office. How could you possibly vote for him?
There is a law of diminishing returns on this stuff and we are a long way down the curve.
Everything she said was true, and remains so.
It didn't shift votes at the time, but what else do you suggest?
It shouldn't be ignored, or forgotten.
Yes it was true. He is a scumbag, just like Corbyn. But as a political strategy it doesn't work. As @kle4 says what the Tories need is a good candidate with a positive message that chimes. May scored 0/3 in that and scraped home because Corbyn is scum. It would be unacceptable to take that risk again. Who is going to give people positive reasons for voting Tory? Who has a vision of what sort of society they want to encourage and develop? Who has the first clue about how to achieve it?
Effective politics are about the message of the candidate. Trump won because he had such a message. It was dishonest, simplistic rubbish but people could relate to it. Corbyn did better than expected for the same reasons. I am increasingly unsure negative campaigning works in the modern media environment which is odd because it seems designed for it. You just get echo chambers allowing the already convinced to feel smug.
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, he supported that, he is a complete moral reprobate and not fit to hold the office. How could you possibly vote for him?
Such attacks certainly stir up those who already think he is morally contemptible. I have been disgusted by recent revelations but in truth they rank somewhat lower than his vile, near treasonous behaviour with the IRA. It hasn't changed my mind or made me less likely to vote for him. That was never going to happen even before.
The effect on those who don't hold him in such contempt is much less marked. There is some evidence that his personal rating has fallen somewhat but whether that is because of the accusations or the fact that Labour once again looks like a disorganised, incoherent, disunited mess is hard to say. What I think is clear is that the lesson of 2017 has still not been learned. There is a law of diminishing returns on this stuff and we are a long way down the curve.
None of it should be forgotten, and labour mps shoukd continue to pressed for their views on it (after all if someone has done wrong thstistrue whether the polls move or not), but no-one cares enough for it to effect their vote, and the Tories need a good candidate with a positive message which chimes with people.
What the last fortnight has exposed is the extreme lengths that Corbyn's army of supporters and his team at Labour will go to. I found the way they defended what was clearly a falsehood to be extremely chilling. Even the official press office was at it.
Imagine this lot in action when JC is PM and he does something the public don't agree with.
or Boris and his relationship with the truth. Truly the options before us are miserable.
These attacks on Corbyn are and will continue to be ineffective (in the same way as the attacks on Boris were). Firstly this is seen as an establishment attack - both politicians and press - against an outsider who must be kept out at all costs. Secondly when the establishment appears to have no interest in acting in what people perceive to be the best interests of the country, attacks on the outsider's patriotism ring hollows. And thirdly, nobody believes a word that comes out of the established press - as another poster remarked recently, when the question of whether or not a politician touched someone's knee 20 years ago carries exponentially more coverage than a grooming gang in Newcastle with 700 victims, you know something is very wrong.
If this sounds like America and Trump, it's because it is. Even though Trump and Corbyn are very different, they are united by the fact that they are outsiders fighting against the establishment, and large sections of the people in each case are willing to take a chance on the outsider because the establishment has ignored them for years if not decades.
These attacks on Corbyn are and will continue to be ineffective (in the same way as the attacks on Boris were). Firstly this is seen as an establishment attack - both politicians and press - against an outsider who must be kept out at all costs. Secondly when the establishment appears to have no interest in acting in what people perceive to be the best interests of the country, attacks on the outsider's patriotism ring hollows. And thirdly, nobody believes a word that comes out of the established press - as another poster remarked recently, when the question of whether or not a politician touched someone's knee 20 years ago carries exponentially more coverage than a grooming gang in Newcastle with 700 victims, you know something is very wrong.
If this sounds like America and Trump, it's because it is. Even though Trump and Corbyn are very different, they are united by the fact that they are outsiders fighting against the establishment, and large sections of the people in each case are willing to take a chance on the outsider because the establishment has ignored them for years if not decades.
Corbyn has a staunch group of supporters, but overall, his ratings are very bad (much worse than Trump's).
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, he supported that, he is a complete moral reprobate and not fit to hold the office. How could you possibly vote for him?
Such attacks certainly stir up those who already think he is morally contemptible. I have been disgusted by recent revelations but in truth they rank somewhat lower than his vile, near treasonous behaviour with the IRA. It hasn't changed my mind or made me less likely to vote for him. That was never going to happen even before.
The effect on those who don't hold him in such contempt is much less marked. There is rve.
None of it should be forgotten, and labour mps shoukd continue to h people.
What the last fortnight has exposed is the extreme lengths that Corbyn's army of supporters and his team at Labour will go to. I found the way they defended what was clearly a falsehood to be extremely chilling. Even the official press office was at it.
Imagine this lot in action when JC is PM and he does something the public don't agree with.
I think the most important thing that has been shown is that there can be little doubt now how similar Corbyns core are with Trumps core. Very different men in manner and politics, but Boris has missed the chance to be the first Trumpian party leader.
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, er going to happen even before.
The effect on those who don't hold him in such rve.
None of it should be forgotten, and labour mps shoukd continue to pressed for their views on with people.
"A good candidate with a positive message which chimes with people". Blimey, you don't ask for much do you?
One reason I don't like Corbyn, who I have said positive things about, is he makes me want to vote for negative reasons, for the least worst, rather than who seems best. I don't like that, and, while I find party tribalism overdone a lot of the time, I find the personal glorification of him very creepy when it includes calling things he has said smears (for instance on antisemitism being a problem in the party)
A couple of days ago, I posted a short scenario where a confused elderly tourist enters a cemetery and is led by the elbow back to the beach by a nice terrorist leader.
These attacks on Corbyn are and will continue to be ineffective (in the same way as the attacks on Boris were). Firstly this is seen as an establishment attack - both politicians and press - against an outsider who must be kept out at all costs. Secondly when the establishment appears to have no interest in acting in what people perceive to be the best interests of the country, attacks on the outsider's patriotism ring hollows. And thirdly, nobody believes a word that comes out of the established press - as another poster remarked recently, when the question of whether or not a politician touched someone's knee 20 years ago carries exponentially more coverage than a grooming gang in Newcastle with 700 victims, you know something is very wrong.
If this sounds like America and Trump, it's because it is. Even though Trump and Corbyn are very different, they are united by the fact that they are outsiders fighting against the establishment, and large sections of the people in each case are willing to take a chance on the outsider because the establishment has ignored them for years if not decades.
Corbyn has a staunch group of supporters, but overall, his ratings are very bad (much worse than Trump's).
Yet hestill came close last time and the Tories will need to contend with the brexit aftermath and probably economic trouble. Come a GE he will likely rebound again.
But I find his equivocations on what he says or means and the double standard of why it's ok he's the world's unluckiest man in who he deals with to stretch credibility.
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have been better if he'd remembered it all clearly or if he'd just said sorry, I remember the event but I can't recall the details. 3 out of 10 for media handling this time. But I didn't vote for him to be Alastair Campbell, and a bit of me quite likes the fact that he doesn't polish his comments with immaculate care.
Occam's Razor applies here on both sides. Because some of his critics here are sure he's an anti-semitic terrorist sympathiser, they think that it's probably an example of that. Because I'm quite sure he's neither, I assume the same sort of minor cock-up that I've experienced myself.
You're very generous. If you're going out of your way to fly to Tunisia to engage in what is clearly a controversial political act and make a statement, it seems wise to do your homework first and support only the things you want to support. Especially, if you are an MP representing a constituency and party.
I find it hard to believe that Corbyn did not know where he was or what he was doing.
This is a very specific, deliberate act. Whilst MPs are very busy, they really don't find themselves in Tunisia all that often.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
It’s very odd, isn’t it. Unemployment appears to be low, yet people are still having to turn to foodbanks, homelessness is is rising, and wages in the middle and below are stagnant.
Services are being cut ‘because they’re unaffordable’ left right and centre.
Something's very wrong with the current economic model
and making up the shortfall in debt. This has been a public and private sector problem.
The sad truth is that this is still going on but not to the same extent. We have not yet learned to control our expenditure to what we earn, hence the poor savings ratio and the enormous trade deficit, and, more disappointingly, we have been very unsuccessful in increasing output by productivity. The latest figures did contain a jump in productivity but whether this is a blip or the start of a very necessary change is unclear.
There is also the question of the allocation of the cake. Overall our gini coefficient has fallen and there was that chart linked to on here recently showing that we were the only EU country where inequality had fallen across all age groups. And yet we have the 11% increase for FTSE bosses to an average of £4m. It is a pity in some respects that we are missing an opposition to ask questions about that. But I am sure Labour has more important things to do.
The top 10% have generally seen the biggest rises in taxation and biggest cuts in benefits of any income group since 2010, but maybe within that group, there's a much smaller element (perhaps the top 0.5%) who have seen their incomes soar.
This is an interesting article, based on the Resolution Foundation's recent report.
Real household incomes rose sharply for all groups between 1997 and 2003, and then, went into reverse for the poorest 50% of households for ten years, and the rate of growth for the top 50% slowed markedly, before falling sharply from 2009 to 2013. No income group, other than pensioners, was better off in 2013 than in 2003.
Since 2013, real household incomes have risen across the board, but at a much slower rate than between 1997 and 2003.
Economic growth between 2003 and 2007 simply didn't feed through into income growth.
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have been better if he'd remembered it all clearly or if he'd just said sorry, I remember the event but I can't recall the details. 3 out of 10 for media handling this time. But I didn't vote for him to be Alastair Campbell, and a bit of me quite likes the fact that he doesn't polish his comments with immaculate care.
Occam's Razor applies here on both sides. Because some of his critics here are sure he's an anti-semitic terrorist sympathiser, they think that it's probably an example of that. Because I'm quite sure he's neither, I assume the same sort of minor cock-up that I've experienced myself.
You're very generous. If you're going out of your way to fly to Tunisia to engage in what is clearly a controversial political act and make a statement, it seems wise to do your homework first and support only the things you want to support. Especially, if you are an MP representing a contituency and party.
This is a very specific, deliberate act. Whilst MPs are very busy, they really don't find themselves in Tunisia all that often.
Nothing ever seems to be his fault, and if he does something which it is agreed is unwise he never really meant it it seems. So many years in the excuse wears thin, but he's fortunate no one cares enough to electorally harm him anymore than would happen anyway.
Similar reasoning with Boris - deliberate patterns of behaviour or seeming carelessness over so long preclude many explanations which gettrotted out in defence.
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have been better if he'd remembered it all clearly or if he'd just said sorry, I remember the event but I can't recall the details. 3 out of 10 for media handling this time. But I didn't vote for him to be Alastair Campbell, and a bit of me quite likes the fact that he doesn't polish his comments with immaculate care.
Occam's Razor applies here on both sides. Because some of his critics here are sure he's an anti-semitic terrorist sympathiser, they think that it's probably an example of that. Because I'm quite sure he's neither, I assume the same sort of minor cock-up that I've experienced myself.
You're very generous. If you're going out of your way to fly to Tunisia to engage in what is clearly a controversial political act and make a statement, it seems wise to do your homework first and support only the things you want to support. Especially, if you are an MP representing a constituency and party.
I find it hard to believe that Corbyn did not know where he was or what he was doing.
This is a very specific, deliberate act. Whilst MPs are very busy, they really don't find themselves in Tunisia all that often.
If you were in any doubt you might have listened to any of the speeches being made at the Conference. Corbyn was there because he supports the Palestinians in their violent struggle against Israel. He clearly finds men of violence sexy, hence his affection for members of the IRA. It has nothing to do with peace and everything to do with support for the anti western underdog.
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, he supported that, he is a complete moral reprobate and not fit to hold the office. How could you possibly vote for him?
Such attacks certainly stir up those who already think he is morally contemptible. I have been disgusted by recent revelations but in truth they rank somewhat lower than his vile, near treasonous behaviour with the IRA. It hasn't changed my mind or made me less likely to vote for him. That was never going to happen even before.
The effect on those who don't hold him in such contempt is much less marked. There is some evidence that his personal rating has fallen somewhat but whether that is because of the accusations or the fact that Labour once again looks like a disorganised, incoherent, disunited mess is hard to say. What I think is clear is that the lesson of 2017 has still not been learned. There is a law of diminishing returns on this stuff and we are a long way down the curve.
None of it should be forgotten, and labour mps shoukd continue to pressed for their views on it (after all if someone has done wrong thstistrue whether the polls move or not), but no-one cares enough for it to effect their vote, and the Tories need a good candidate with a positive message which chimes with people.
What the last fortnight has exposed is the extreme lengths that Corbyn's army of supporters and his team at Labour will go to. I found the way they defended what was clearly a falsehood to be extremely chilling. Even the official press office was at it.
Imagine this lot in action when JC is PM and he does something the public don't agree with.
Imagine the other lot making up a load of lies about what Jezza's dad did in the war, or do the Tories only use that line against Jews?
Mr. P, indeed. Clinton, specifically, could've won simply by using her resources sensibly instead of wasting time in California.
More generally, addressing genuine concerns that people have instead of playing the race card if they're worried about immigration (as an example) would be a good step.
The lack of reporting of the 31-strong (if memory serves) rape gang in Huddersfield just a day or two ago is also indicative of why trust in the mainstream media is in decline. Didn't see it at all on the broadcast news (read online).
Clinton campaign was not well thought out, but she wasn't so much campaigning in California as fundraising, which was essential.
The Huddersfield trial featured on all the radio broadcasts that I heard, and with the Tommy Robinson stuff in the news over the summer has featured heavily. Once again public discontent over immigration is over non EUmigrants, and often here decades rather than recent EU migrants who generally assimilate well.
Dr. Foxy, interesting to hear it's been on radio (I almost never listen to radio news).
The fact remains the broadcast media decided that in terms of coverage, a large rape gang being sent down is less important than the Leader of the Opposition seemingly laying a wreath and praying at a terrorists' grave, which in turn is less important than Boris making daft comments to try and get some attention.
These attacks on Corbyn are and will continue to be ineffective (in the same way as the attacks on Boris were). Firstly this is seen as an establishment attack - both politicians and press - against an outsider who must be kept out at all costs. Secondly when the establishment appears to have no interest in acting in what people perceive to be the best interests of the country, attacks on the outsider's patriotism ring hollows. And thirdly, nobody believes a word that comes out of the established press - as another poster remarked recently, when the question of whether or not a politician touched someone's knee 20 years ago carries exponentially more coverage than a grooming gang in Newcastle with 700 victims, you know something is very wrong.
If this sounds like America and Trump, it's because it is. Even though Trump and Corbyn are very different, they are united by the fact that they are outsiders fighting against the establishment, and large sections of the people in each case are willing to take a chance on the outsider because the establishment has ignored them for years if not decades.
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have been better if he'd remembered it all clearly or if he'd just said sorry, I remember the event but I can't recall the details. 3 out of 10 for media handling this time. But I didn't vote for him to be Alastair Campbell, and a bit of me quite likes the fact that he doesn't polish his comments with immaculate care.
Occam's Razor applies here on both sides. Because some of his critics here are sure he's an anti-semitic terrorist sympathiser, they think that it's probably an example of that. Because I'm quite sure he's neither, I assume the same sort of minor cock-up that I've experienced myself.
You're very generous. If you're going out of your way to fly to Tunisia to engage in what is clearly a controversial political act and make a statement, it seems wise to do your homework first and support only the things you want to support. Especially, if you are an MP representing a constituency and party.
I find it hard to believe that Corbyn did not know where he was or what he was doing.
This is a very specific, deliberate act. Whilst MPs are very busy, they really don't find themselves in Tunisia all that often.
The truth is that Corbyn loves terrorists who he considers freedom fighters, and has done all that he can throughout his career to mix with them. he is not unlucky or unfortunate for having pictures taken with them, he has wanted to associate with them. As much as those who support him dance around it ,that is the truth. I am unsure that people realise the horrifc damage that this man will do to the security of the UK should he ever become PM.
It hurts us more than it hurts them doesn't count as a "benefit". Also if both parties lose out on leaving, that suggests the Single Market DOES bring benefits and is the opposite of an "inefficient protectionist construct".
It doesn't say that the UK will lose out. It is not talking about a no deal scenario - it is talking about a deal where we stay aligned in goods and diverge in services. It is saying that the EU will lose out specifically because the UK will be able to become more competitive.
I know, it must hurt....
Fair cop. The danger of basing my comment on a free snippet of an article rather.than the article itself, which I have now read. Stephanie Rico's claim is that a large part of "goods" by value relate to services and production and would not be covered by the Chequers Agreement, but the EU would be obliged to accept those goods on an equal basis. Whether you think it's a protectionist construct depends on whether you think that regulation has value. It doesn't help us if the EU refuses to play ball. It would be astonishing if did allow imports to.be less regulated than domestic production.
Interesting point however.
The entire basis of international trade is that countries cannot differentiate between imports based on how the goods are made. They can only differentiate if the goods do not meet local standards. For example, we can't block Chinese electronics because they are made by virtual slave labour, we can only block them if they don't meet UK product standards. As long as they do, we cannot discriminate (WTO rules).
But that is the problem with the EU. The want to impose their economic and social model on everyone (especially in Europe), not just product standards, because it is about protecting their high regulation system. And this is why the EU is becoming less and less important in global trade.
But legally, unless May trades away our rights, we can change our regulations, become more competitive and there is nothing that the EU can do about it. Which is probably why they manufactured the NI border issue...:)
The point isn't whether the EU is able to discriminate against UK imports. It's whether it's obliged to agree preferential terms with us. It's not. In any case the WTO non discrimination protections aren't that strong.
So much of the attack on Corbyn over the last fortnight has reminded me of the Hillary attacks on Trump. He did this, he said this, he supported that, he is a complete moral reprobate and not fit to hold the office. How could you possibly vote for him?
Such attacks certainly stir up those who already think he is morally contemptible. I have been disgusted by recent revelations but in truth they rank somewhat lower than his vile, near treasonous behaviour with the IRA. It hasn't changed my mind or made me less likely to vote for him. That was never going to happen even before.
The effect on those who don't hold him in such contempt is much less marked. There is some evidence that his personal rating has fallen somewhat but whether that is because of the accusations or the fact that Labour once again looks like a disorganised, incoherent, disunited mess is hard to say. What I think is clear is that the lesson of 2017 has still not been learned. There is a law of diminishing returns on this stuff and we are a long way down the curve.
None of it should be forgotten, and labour mps shoukd continue to pressed for their views on it (after all if someone has done wrong thstistrue whether the polls move or not), but no-one cares enough for it to effect their vote, and the Tories need a good candidate with a positive message which chimes with people.
What the last fortnight has exposed is the extreme lengths that Corbyn's army of supporters and his team at Labour will go to. I found the way they defended what was clearly a falsehood to be extremely chilling. Even the official press office was at it.
Imagine this lot in action when JC is PM and he does something the public don't agree with.
Imagine the other lot making up a load of lies about what Jezza's dad did in the war, or do the Tories only use that line against Jews?
The other lot doing awful things doesn't make the creepy adoration of Corbyn, including calling smears things he said were not smears, any less creepy. All parties certainly do bad things and have terrible supporters, which deserve calling out every time. The extent or nature of it, including how divorced from reality it gets, can differ.
It hurts us more than it hurts them doesn't count as a "benefit". Also if both parties lose out on leaving, that suggests the Single Market DOES bring benefits and is the opposite of an "inefficient protectionist construct".
It doesn't say that the UK will lose out. It is not talking about a no deal scenario - it is talking about a deal where we stay aligned in goods and diverge in services. It is saying that the EU will lose out specifically because the UK will be able to become more competitive.
I know, it must hurt....
Fair cop. The danger of basing my comment on a free snippet of an article rather.than the article itself, which I have now read. Stephanie Rico's claim is that a large part of "goods" by value relate to services and production and would not be covered by the Chequers Agreement, but the EU would be obliged to accept those goods on an equal basis. Whether you think it's a protectionist construct depends on whether you think that regulation has value. It doesn't help us if the EU refuses to play ball. It would be astonishing if did allow imports to.be less regulated than domestic production.
Interesting point however.
The entire basis of international trade is that countries cannot differentiate between imports based on how the goods are made. They can only differentiate if the goods do not meet local standards. For example, we can't block Chinese electronics because they are made by virtual slave labour, we can only block them if they don't meet UK product standards. As long as they do, we cannot discriminate (WTO rules).
But that is the problem with the EU. The want to impose their economic and social model on everyone (especially in Europe), not just product standards, because it is about protecting their high regulation system. And this is why the EU is becoming less and less important in global trade.
But legally, unless May trades away our rights, we can change our regulations, become more competitive and there is nothing that the EU can do about it. Which is probably why they manufactured the NI border issue...:)
The point isn't whether the EU is able to discriminate against UK imports. It's whether it's obliged to agree preferential terms with us. It's not. In any case the WTO non discrimination protections aren't that strong.
Indeed if Chequers is so one sided against the EU, it is going to fail at the first hurdle.
Though it was lame and staggering even at the starting gate.
Even though Trump and Corbyn are very different, they are united by the fact that they are outsiders fighting against the establishment, and large sections of the people in each case are willing to take a chance on the outsider because the establishment has ignored them for years if not decades.
Can we look forward then to the BBC sending out Ed Balls to get down amongst Corbyn's keyboard warriors?
Even though Trump and Corbyn are very different, they are united by the fact that they are outsiders fighting against the establishment, and large sections of the people in each case are willing to take a chance on the outsider because the establishment has ignored them for years if not decades.
Can we look forward then to the BBC sending out Ed Balls to get down amongst Corbyn's keyboard warriors?
Balls deep in...Corbyn Country
If that's not the name if the show I will stop paying my licence fee.
Even though Trump and Corbyn are very different, they are united by the fact that they are outsiders fighting against the establishment, and large sections of the people in each case are willing to take a chance on the outsider because the establishment has ignored them for years if not decades.
Can we look forward then to the BBC sending out Ed Balls to get down amongst Corbyn's keyboard warriors?
Balls deep in...Corbyn Country
Not sure he would have the stomach for it. All that avocado on toast?
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have been better if he'd remembered it all clearly or if he'd just said sorry, I remember the event but I can't recall the details. 3 out of 10 for media handling this time. But I didn't vote for him to be Alastair Campbell, and a bit of me quite likes the fact that he doesn't polish his comments with immaculate care.
Occam's Razor applies here on both sides. Because some of his critics here are sure he's an anti-semitic terrorist sympathiser, they think that it's probably an example of that. Because I'm quite sure he's neither, I assume the same sort of minor cock-up that I've experienced myself.
You're very generous. If you're going out of your way to fly to Tunisia to engage in what is clearly a controversial political act and make a statement, it seems wise to do your homework first and support only the things you want to support. Especially, if you are an MP representing a constituency and party.
I find it hard to believe that Corbyn did not know where he was or what he was doing.
This is a very specific, deliberate act. Whilst MPs are very busy, they really don't find themselves in Tunisia all that often.
The truth is that Corbyn loves terrorists who he considers freedom fighters, and has done all that he can throughout his career to mix with them. he is not unlucky or unfortunate for having pictures taken with them, he has wanted to associate with them. As much as those who support him dance around it ,that is the truth. I am unsure that people realise the horrifc damage that this man will do to the security of the UK should he ever become PM.
It is a worry. Corbyn might easily scrap the working carriers, sell off all the Harriers and cut the army in half. Or was that the Tories? It's so easy to get confused.
What's your view of it all, Nick? The associations, wreaths, "peace maker", etc?
I think he took the view that his career was to be a backbencher being helpful to Third World underdogs against American imperialism, and that that would in the long run do more for peace and fairness than plunging into whatever wars the US wanted us to get into (I took a different view over Iraq and Afghanistan and have come to feel he was right). I doubt if he spent a lot of time weighing up the impact of this or that event, let alone analysing the exact positions of everyone else attending (as an MP you really don't unless someone disgusting stands out when you glance at the invite) - he just attended if asked and said what he thought. But I don't think he's remotely anti-semitic and the suggestion that he's pro-KKK was just silly. Virtually none of the accusations relate to anything he said - they're all about attending X or appearing on Y.
As an unexpected party leader he has to be more careful and there's a reason that most of this stuff reaches back years, even decades into the past. But I agree with his basic outlook and as a former MP I'm sympathetic to MPs generally who find themselves in awkward photos- over the years you really can't avoid it (and I've taken a similar view of some of the Tory difficulties too). Which private individuals would be willing to have photos of every situation they've been in for the last 30 years? I know that MPs are supposed to be more careful, but if you think you'll always be a backbencher then you generally aren't that watchful all the time.
In this story on a spat between Owen Jones and The New European, I confess I had no idea Jones was gay. Interesting strategy from the editor in defence though.
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have been better if he'd remembered it all clearly or if he'd just said sorry, I remember the event but I can't recall the details. 3 out of 10 for media handling this time. But I didn't vote for him to be Alastair Campbell, and a bit of me quite likes the fact that he doesn't polish his comments with immaculate care.
Occam's Razor applies here on both sides. Because some of his critics here are sure he's an anti-semitic terrorist sympathiser, they think that it's probably an example of that. Because I'm quite sure he's neither, I assume the same sort of minor cock-up that I've experienced myself.
Neither as in neither anti-semitic nor terrorist sympathiser?
One of the reasons why the Graun article was so good yesterday is that he is now compromising his own ideals. I find it difficult to believe that you don't think he was or is a terrorist sympathiser. He has associated with and has made many public statements in support of at least two terrorist groups (Irish, pro-Palestinian). You say he didn't check on wiki to see if they were terrorists - well that comes down to him being either malevolent or ignorant. Neither are good looks for the LotO.
If such associations does not constitute sympathy then I don't know what does.
As the Graun article says - his USP of honesty is ineluctably compromised because the honest thing to say is that he does sympathise with those terrorist groups because he shares their objectives and also that he approves of or doesn't disapprove of their methods.
But then he seems not to want to be honest in this particular instance.
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have been better if he'd remembered it all clearly or if he'd just said sorry, I remember the event but I can't recall the details. 3 out of 10 for media handling this time. But I didn't vote for him to be Alastair Campbell, and a bit of me quite likes the fact that he doesn't polish his comments with immaculate care.
Occam's Razor applies here on both sides. Because some of his critics here are sure he's an anti-semitic terrorist sympathiser, they think that it's probably an example of that. Because I'm quite sure he's neither, I assume the same sort of minor cock-up that I've experienced myself.
You're very generous. If you're going out of your way to fly to Tunisia to engage in what is clearly a controversial political act and make a statement, it seems wise to do your homework first and support only the things you want to support. Especially, if you are an MP representing a constituency and party.
I find it hard to believe that Corbyn did not know where he was or what he was doing.
This is a very specific, deliberate act. Whilst MPs are very busy, they really don't find themselves in Tunisia all that often.
If you were in any doubt you might have listened to any of the speeches being made at the Conference. Corbyn was there because he supports the Palestinians in their violent struggle against Israel. He clearly finds men of violence sexy, hence his affection for members of the IRA. It has nothing to do with peace and everything to do with support for the anti western underdog.
Agreed- remember his doe-eyed look when showing the hard men of IRA/SF around.
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have byself.
Neither as in neither anti-semitic nor terrorist sympathiser?
One of the reasons why the Graun article was so good yesterday is that he is now compromising his own ideals. I find it difficult to believe that you don't think he was a terrorist sympathiser. He has associated with and has made many public statements in support of at least two terrorist groups (Irish, pro-Palestinian). You say he didn't check on wiki to see if they were terrorists - well that comes down to him being either malevolent or ignorant. Neither are good looks for the LotO.
If such associations does not constitute sympathy then I don't know what does.
As the Graun article says - his USP of honesty is ineluctably compromised because the honest thing to say is that he does sympathise with them because he shares their objectives and approves of or doesn't disapprove of their methods.
But then he seems not to want to be honest in this particular instance.
The 'I was an idiot/forgetful' defence is one of the oldest in politics, I have no doubt, but it is often a very weak one, particularly when it is overused. The telling thing in this latest Corbyn story - for it has all been heard before with no impact - is he seems to have been quite disciplined and precise with his and the party's shifting line to take. Which does not in itself preclude an entirely honest approach, but being so precisely defined in the line to take can be suspicious, as Clinton proved a long time ago, and particularly when the defence is around how not disciplined or precise they were before.
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have byself.
Neither as in neither anti-semitic nor terrorist sympathiser?
One of the reasons why the Graun article was so good yesterday is that he is now compromising his own ideals. I find it difficult to believe that you don't think he was a terrorist sympathiser. He has associated with and has made many public statements in support of at least two terrorist groups (Irish, pro-Palestinian). You say he didn't check on wiki to see if they were terrorists - well that comes down to him being either malevolent or ignorant. Neither are good looks for the LotO.
If such associations does not constitute sympathy then I don't know what does.
As the Graun article says - his USP of honesty is ineluctably compromised because the honest thing to say is that he does sympathise with them because he shares their objectives and approves of or doesn't disapprove of their methods.
But then he seems not to want to be honest in this particular instance.
The 'I was an idiot/forgetful' defence is one of the oldest in politics, I have no doubt, but it is often a very weak one, particularly when it is overused. The telling thing in this latest Corbyn story - for it has all been heard before with no impact - is he seems to have been quite disciplined and precise with his and the party's shifting line to take. Which does not in itself preclude an entirely honest approach, but being so precisely defined in the line to take can be suspicious, as Clinton proved a long time ago, and particularly when the defence is around how not disciplined or precise they were before.
You can't on the one hand roll your eyes at a reporter for not getting it, and then on the other hand profess not to get it yourself.
After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.
As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.
Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?
I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.
Brown is a nasty egotistical talentless no-user. How anybody listens to the loser is hard to believe, he makes Trump look like a genius. A lying no good toerag.
No, I think he was careless in an understandable way. You've invited to a pro-Palestinian conference, you are generally sympathetic so you go along and say your piece. There's a delegation to lay some wreaths at a Palestinian ceremony: you're told it's to commemorate victims of an airstrike. You politely accompany them and are snapped holding a wreath, looking vaguely as if you're thinking "who do I give this to?". Did you intend to celebrate the Munich massacre? Of course not. But do you study all the gravestones and quickly check Wikipedia to see who they all were? And do you recall years later exactly where you stood and who was in the graves? No.
It would have byself.
Neither as in neither anti-semitic nor terrorist sympathiser?
One of the reasons why the Graun article was so good yesterday is that he is now compromising his own ideals. I find it difficult to believe that you don't think he was a terrorist sympathiser. He has associated with and has made many public statements in support of at least two terrorist groups (Irish, pro-Palestinian). You say he didn't check on wiki to see if they were terrorists - well that comes down to him being either malevolent or ignorant. Neither are good looks for the LotO.
If such associations does not constitute sympathy then I don't know what does.
As the Graun article says - his USP of honesty is ineluctably compromised because the honest thing to say is that he does sympathise with them because he shares their objectives and approves of or doesn't disapprove of their methods.
But then he seems not to want to be honest in this particular instance.
The 'I was an idiot/forgetful' defence is one of the oldest in politics, I have no doubt, but it is often a very weak one, particularly when it is overused. The telling thing in this latest Corbyn story - for it has all been heard before with no impact - is he seems to have been quite disciplined and precise with his and the party's shifting line to take. Which does not in itself preclude an entirely honest approach, but being so precisely defined in the line to take can be suspicious, as Clinton proved a long time ago, and particularly when the defence is around how not disciplined or precise they were before.
You can't on the one hand roll your eyes at a reporter for not getting it, and then on the other hand profess not to get it yourself.
Indeed so. And once again someone manages to get across what I'm trying to say, using 1/4 of the words I used!
Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.
Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction. That's the difference. Brexit was not "started in America" nor foisted on us by Brussels. Gordon Brown led the international response to the GFC. Theresa May is leading what exactly?
It's a bit rich to blame Theresa May for Brexit, even if you do think it's a Conservative concoction (a remarkable stretch in itself, given that there was a referendum).
Gordon Brown led nothing. His government reacted - late - to the crisis, and in the end did what every single government in its position would have had to do, thanks to Darling. And, whilst it is true that the crisis 'started in America', and was a world crisis, Gordon Brown bears a lot of the responsibility for the fact that the UK was so badly hit; it was precisely his destruction of the financial supervision system which was the cause of that. For 150 years, before Brown, the UK had never had a bank run or a systemic crisis threatening the banking system, despite two world wars, the Great Depression, the banking crises of the late nineteenth century, the secondary banking crisis, the oil price crisis, etc. But he thought he knew better, took overall responsibility away from the Bank of England, and gave it to.. no-one.
What's more, he was warned, in terms, of how stupid this was. We should never forget Peter Lilley's prophetic words from 1997.
I think Alastair Darling is hugely underappreciated.
He was the dumb to Brown's Dumber, a pair of useless cretins.
The pound has endured its longest losing streak against the dollar since the financial crisis a decade ago because of mounting fears that the UK will crash out of the European Union in March and amid signs that the economy is struggling to gather momentum.
Sterling has fallen for 12 consecutive trading sessions, dipping 0.3 per cent to as low as $1.2689 yesterday, its weakest since June 2017. The last time the currency fell for 12 days running was in August 2008, weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust, tipping the global economy into recession.
I love all this stuff trying to talk the economy down. Remind me what were the unemployment figures like the other day? I sure they were at the lowest for 40 years, yet apparently the economy is struggling. What would they be like if the economy was doing well?
It’s very odd, isn’t it. Unemployment appears to be low, yet people are still having to turn to foodbanks, homelessness is is rising, and wages in the middle and below are stagnant.
Services are being cut ‘because they’re unaffordable’ left right and centre.
Something's very wrong with the current economic model
A lot of people in work are effectively being forced to work part time on an involuntary basis , and earn relatively little albeit enough to get them removed from the headline unemployment figures. Some economists have implied that when account is taken of 'underemployment' that the underlying unemployment level is 7% - 7.5%. That could explain the lack of upward pressure on wages.
After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.
As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.
Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?
I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.
Brown is a nasty egotistical talentless no-user. How anybody listens to the loser is hard to believe, he makes Trump look like a genius. A lying no good toerag.
Ah, but I preferred his style (or lack there of) over Blair's phoney charm (I assume it worked on people in 1997, but by 2005 when I first started paying attention to politics it was offputting)
Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.
Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction. That's the difference. Brexit was not "started in America" nor foisted on us by Brussels. Gordon Brown led the international response to the GFC. Theresa May is leading what exactly?
It's a bit rich to blame Theresa May for Brexit, even if you do think it's a Conservative concoction (a remarkable stretch in itself, given that there was a referendum).
Gordon Brown led nothing.
What's more, he was warned, in terms, of how stupid this was. We should never forget Peter Lilley's prophetic words from 1997.
I think Alastair Darling is hugely underappreciated.
He was the dumb to Brown's Dumber, a pair of useless cretins.
Even though Trump and Corbyn are very different, they are united by the fact that they are outsiders fighting against the establishment, and large sections of the people in each case are willing to take a chance on the outsider because the establishment has ignored them for years if not decades.
Can we look forward then to the BBC sending out Ed Balls to get down amongst Corbyn's keyboard warriors?
Balls deep in...Corbyn Country
No chance, and I agree that the BBC is not especially biased against Corbyn and tends to lean leftwards. However, Corbyn's supporters have been able to successfully make the case for press distortions because it is so clear in other areas.
The one that does my head in is carrot and stick. The carrot is on a stick held in front of the donkey to motivate it to walk forwards it's not a question of giving the donkey one or beating it with the other. Gah!
That is quite wrong, the expression means a combination of threat and bribe. Where is the threat in your version?
Agree his is the snowflake version , in reality it was comparison of using threat or reward.
These attacks on Corbyn are and will continue to be ineffective (in the same way as the attacks on Boris were). Firstly this is seen as an establishment attack - both politicians and press - against an outsider who must be kept out at all costs. Secondly when the establishment appears to have no interest in acting in what people perceive to be the best interests of the country, attacks on the outsider's patriotism ring hollows. And thirdly, nobody believes a word that comes out of the established press - as another poster remarked recently, when the question of whether or not a politician touched someone's knee 20 years ago carries exponentially more coverage than a grooming gang in Newcastle with 700 victims, you know something is very wrong.
If this sounds like America and Trump, it's because it is. Even though Trump and Corbyn are very different, they are united by the fact that they are outsiders fighting against the establishment, and large sections of the people in each case are willing to take a chance on the outsider because the establishment has ignored them for years if not decades.
Corbyn has a staunch group of supporters, but overall, his ratings are very bad (much worse than Trump's).
References to the "Establishment" are always so ridiculous. Corbyn is a white middle-class male who grew up in a manor house and went to a fee paying prep school and then one of the top grammar schools in the country (where he scraped two Es at A-level). He has been a Member of Parliament for eons as a member of one of the two principal political parties of the UK. He might not wear a pin-stripe suit, but he is as much part of the political establishment as those other two lunatics on the apparently opposite side of the political divide who went to Eton.
I think this poll is an outlier too! But Labour vote has improved in the last two weeks or so.
Looks like Labour will be wooing the SNP soon
Aren't the SNP due to announce their formal campaign for a new SindyRef this autumn? I wonder if Lab might agree it is time for another one, as part of that wooing? IIRC Corbyn is more open to that than SLAB.
Comments
Voting choice is mostly determined by domestic issues, or foreign policy issues that have a direct impact (such as Brexit and overseas interventions).
As for the EU, why doesn't someone just emanate previous distinguished leaders and just say "Non, Non, Non". No deal would be a good deal for the EU.
F1: just over a week until the next race weekend. I wonder if we'll know who's replacing Ricciardo and Alonso then.
David Cameron, speech entitled "Bringing law and order to the financial markets" , March 24, 2009:
"Our approach is to cut regulation where the problem is too much of it - like the red tape that is strangling small business. And to reform it where the problem is the wrong kind - like the failed system of financial regulation."
And this Gordon Brown?
Gordon Brown, Mansion House speech, June 2006:
"In 2003, just at the time of a previous Mansion House speech, the Worldcom accounting scandal broke. And I will be honest with you, many who advised me including not a few newspapers, favoured a regulatory crackdown.
I believe that we were right not to go down that road which in the United States led to Sarbannes-Oxley, and we were right to build upon our light touch system through the leadership of Sir Callum McCarthy - fair, proportionate, predictable and increasingly risk based."
and
Gordon Brown, Mansion House speech, June 2007:
"So I congratulate you Lord Mayor and the City of London on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London.
I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created."
and
Gordon Brown, Better Regulation Action Plan, 2005:
"In a risk based approach there is no inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification. Not just a light touch but a limited touch. Instead of routine regulation attempting to cover all, we adopt a risk based approach which targets only the necessary few.
A risk based approach helps move us a million miles away from the old assumption - the assumption since the first legislation of Victorian times - that business, unregulated, will invariably act irresponsibly. The better view is that businesses want to act responsibly. Reputation with customers and investors is more important to behaviour than regulation, and transparency - backed up by the light touch - can be more effective than the heavy hand."
and (this is a gem!)
Gordon Brown, speech at the opening of Lehman Brothers EU headquarters, April 2004:
"I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain. During its one hundred and fifty year history, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many others even began to realise their potential...."
I know, it must hurt....
Yes, It is Singh (Number Cruncher) - no Corbynite to be fair
Most of us, surely including many Mail readers, are just skipping the detail of the stories now. It's the same mistake by the Tory press as when the Sun (?) did 14 pages attacking him during the 2017 election - I really doubt if as many as 10% of their readers ploughed through them all, and the message "my paper really doesn't like Corbyn" must have been factored in years ago.
An expensive way to dodge a promise! Still, he might get the chance to lie in front of the bulldozers; at the likely pace of the project he may well be retired from politics by then.
If you wanted to really damage Corbyn, you would have him photographed at a bank or sharing a platform with Tories. It’s a shame there is not a photo in the Tory lobbies where he spent a lot of the last Labour govt.
Such attacks certainly stir up those who already think he is morally contemptible. I have been disgusted by recent revelations but in truth they rank somewhat lower than his vile, near treasonous behaviour with the IRA. It hasn't changed my mind or made me less likely to vote for him. That was never going to happen even before.
The effect on those who don't hold him in such contempt is much less marked. There is some evidence that his personal rating has fallen somewhat but whether that is because of the accusations or the fact that Labour once again looks like a disorganised, incoherent, disunited mess is hard to say. What I think is clear is that the lesson of 2017 has still not been learned. There is a law of diminishing returns on this stuff and we are a long way down the curve.
Services are being cut ‘because they’re unaffordable’ left right and centre.
Something's very wrong with the current economic model
Trump's bull in a china shop approach to international trade is causing mayhem in developing economies. The focus has been on Turkey but it is far more widespread than that and a lot of money is pouring out of these economies into the safe haven of the dollar driving up its value. Keep an eye on Brazil. Brexit is a sideshow to all this.
I always thought PFI was a bad idea. Especially after a friend of mine was called on to advise on the operation of the pharmacy dept of a new hospital and opined that whoever designed it had no idea of the departments operational needs.
The sad truth is that this is still going on but not to the same extent. We have not yet learned to control our expenditure to what we earn, hence the poor savings ratio and the enormous trade deficit, and, more disappointingly, we have been very unsuccessful in increasing output by productivity. The latest figures did contain a jump in productivity but whether this is a blip or the start of a very necessary change is unclear.
There is also the question of the allocation of the cake. Overall our gini coefficient has fallen and there was that chart linked to on here recently showing that we were the only EU country where inequality had fallen across all age groups. And yet we have the 11% increase for FTSE bosses to an average of £4m. It is a pity in some respects that we are missing an opposition to ask questions about that. But I am sure Labour has more important things to do.
Interesting point however.
As an unexpected party leader he has to be more careful and there's a reason that most of this stuff reaches back years, even decades into the past. But I agree with his basic outlook and as a former MP I'm sympathetic to MPs generally who find themselves in awkward photos- over the years you really can't avoid it (and I've taken a similar view of some of the Tory difficulties too). Which private individuals would be willing to have photos of every situation they've been in for the last 30 years? I know that MPs are supposed to be more careful, but if you think you'll always be a backbencher then you generally aren't that watchful all the time.
Cameron = Blair
May = Brown
??? = Miliband
??? = Corbyn
On that basis, shouldn't we all be putting our money on Gavin Williamson as next Tory leader?
To be followed by Bill Cash.
Limited PFI in some areas like bridge construction seems to make sense. For wholesale hospital and school construction and maintenance it seems like an idiotic fiddle to keep spending off the books whilst lumbering the taxpayer with decades of vastly inflated costs.
In terms of food I think it is now as cheap as it has been in my working life. In Tescos last night they had a whole range of vegetables for just 39 pence for a big bag. If you shop carefully you can easily feed yourself very well for less than £20 per week, which compared to the average wage is quite remarkable.
It maybe that the regulatory regime of the host country is more onerous than the EU regime.
But that is the problem with the EU. The want to impose their economic and social model on everyone (especially in Europe), not just product standards, because it is about protecting their high regulation system. And this is why the EU is becoming less and less important in global trade.
But legally, unless May trades away our rights, we can change our regulations, become more competitive and there is nothing that the EU can do about it. Which is probably why they manufactured the NI border issue...:)
"a backbencher being helpful to Third World underdogs against American imperialism."
A nice gloss, but there are ways to do this. Instead of working for famine relief for instance , he has actively worked for violent overthrow, selectively choosing anywhere where there is already unrest. But then, that is what Trotsky espoused. Violent overthrow of the system world-wide, apart from those havens of peace like Venezuela, and Cambodia under Pol Pot..
The 'working for peace' label has only been a convenient shield. And it's not only American imperialism, it's anyone he defines as an oppressor. The very definition of a useful idiot.
Like you, I'm sure he's sincere. But a sincere idiot is still an idiot.
It didn't shift votes at the time, but what else do you suggest?
It shouldn't be ignored, or forgotten.
Imagine this lot in action when JC is PM and he does something the public don't agree with.
More generally, addressing genuine concerns that people have instead of playing the race card if they're worried about immigration (as an example) would be a good step.
The lack of reporting of the 31-strong (if memory serves) rape gang in Huddersfield just a day or two ago is also indicative of why trust in the mainstream media is in decline. Didn't see it at all on the broadcast news (read online).
It would have been better if he'd remembered it all clearly or if he'd just said sorry, I remember the event but I can't recall the details. 3 out of 10 for media handling this time. But I didn't vote for him to be Alastair Campbell, and a bit of me quite likes the fact that he doesn't polish his comments with immaculate care.
Occam's Razor applies here on both sides. Because some of his critics here are sure he's an anti-semitic terrorist sympathiser, they think that it's probably an example of that. Because I'm quite sure he's neither, I assume the same sort of minor cock-up that I've experienced myself.
Effective politics are about the message of the candidate. Trump won because he had such a message. It was dishonest, simplistic rubbish but people could relate to it. Corbyn did better than expected for the same reasons. I am increasingly unsure negative campaigning works in the modern media environment which is odd because it seems designed for it. You just get echo chambers allowing the already convinced to feel smug.
If this sounds like America and Trump, it's because it is. Even though Trump and Corbyn are very different, they are united by the fact that they are outsiders fighting against the establishment, and large sections of the people in each case are willing to take a chance on the outsider because the establishment has ignored them for years if not decades.
A couple of days ago, I posted a short scenario where a confused elderly tourist enters a cemetery and is led by the elbow back to the beach by a nice terrorist leader.
I didn't expect you to agree.
But I find his equivocations on what he says or means and the double standard of why it's ok he's the world's unluckiest man in who he deals with to stretch credibility.
I find it hard to believe that Corbyn did not know where he was or what he was doing.
This is a very specific, deliberate act. Whilst MPs are very busy, they really don't find themselves in Tunisia all that often.
This is an interesting article, based on the Resolution Foundation's recent report.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-5985783/Millions-low-income-families-worse-15-years-ago-says-Resolution-Foundation.html
Real household incomes rose sharply for all groups between 1997 and 2003, and then, went into reverse for the poorest 50% of households for ten years, and the rate of growth for the top 50% slowed markedly, before falling sharply from 2009 to 2013. No income group, other than pensioners, was better off in 2013 than in 2003.
Since 2013, real household incomes have risen across the board, but at a much slower rate than between 1997 and 2003.
Economic growth between 2003 and 2007 simply didn't feed through into income growth.
Similar reasoning with Boris - deliberate patterns of behaviour or seeming carelessness over so long preclude many explanations which gettrotted out in defence.
The Huddersfield trial featured on all the radio broadcasts that I heard, and with the Tommy Robinson stuff in the news over the summer has featured heavily. Once again public discontent over immigration is over non EUmigrants, and often here decades rather than recent EU migrants who generally assimilate well.
I think the disconnect here is in assuming political strategy is the only factor.
He's a scumbag. People should say that, and know that. It doesn't cause any political damage, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
The fact remains the broadcast media decided that in terms of coverage, a large rape gang being sent down is less important than the Leader of the Opposition seemingly laying a wreath and praying at a terrorists' grave, which in turn is less important than Boris making daft comments to try and get some attention.
Though it was lame and staggering even at the starting gate.
Balls deep in...Corbyn Country
https://order-order.com/2018/08/16/owen-jones-v-new-european/
One of the reasons why the Graun article was so good yesterday is that he is now compromising his own ideals. I find it difficult to believe that you don't think he was or is a terrorist sympathiser. He has associated with and has made many public statements in support of at least two terrorist groups (Irish, pro-Palestinian). You say he didn't check on wiki to see if they were terrorists - well that comes down to him being either malevolent or ignorant. Neither are good looks for the LotO.
If such associations does not constitute sympathy then I don't know what does.
As the Graun article says - his USP of honesty is ineluctably compromised because the honest thing to say is that he does sympathise with those terrorist groups because he shares their objectives and also that he approves of or doesn't disapprove of their methods.
But then he seems not to want to be honest in this particular instance.