FlyTheNest

Rebecca wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:If we think of Corbyn as PM now, with a free hand, how do you think he'd handle relations with France? He's talked about reforming the EU from inside, and he could pretty much kiss goodbye to French help if he didn't back them now, or give them practical support in some way. He could add them to the entirety of Eastern Europe with his anti-NATO stuff.

Can you imagine him achieving much? I can't, really. His school of leftist have always been so hostile to the EU, NATO etc, because they think in terms of themselves taking principled decisions in isolation. Internationalism is talking to people like them in other countries, even if they have zero importance.

It isn't really like that.

Well,Tubby,we can all imagine 'what if 'events with outcomes within the parameters of our own prejudices and experiences.
In the real world we have a PM who is more or less a laughing stock worldwide.(remember the dead pig fucking incident?),who has very little credibility in europe.
So,I will worry about the reality rather than fret about the notion that Corbyn,a backbencher until September,is now PM,Labour having lost the last two GEs.
Maybe,if more leaders were like Corbyn,who won the Ghandi peace prize,the world would be a better place.

You're comparing not supporting France now with Cameron pig fucking as a student? Which do you think the French care about?

Sure, it's a "what if he were PM" is a "what if". But his public position at least is that he wants to be PM.

The idea of "reconnecting" (for want of a better word) while opposing strongly was a good one though. He ought to have made that clear from the go. He can't do it so easily now because it'll precipitate a big internal conflict.

yahyah wrote:Fair enough Grim.
Will refer to the individuals by name in future but it may make for some long lists !

Well. I'm sorry but I shan't be. I'm rubbish at names.
Took me two years to get my lovely neighbours name right. And she's far nicer than some Labour MPs.

The point about ISIL's money is a good one. That could be something Labour might want to emphasize more than it has. Could a united Labour motion be put together that the Government would support? If you can't stop something happening, adding important stuff to the public debate is the next best thing.

ohsocynical wrote:

yahyah wrote:Fair enough Grim.
Will refer to the individuals by name in future but it may make for some long lists !

Well. I'm sorry but I shan't be. I'm rubbish at names.
Took me two years to get my lovely neighbours name right. And she's far nicer than some Labour MPs.

And also,as many media stories use the term moderates instead of given names,surely using that term is acceptable if we're discussing that same story?

I appreciate all the thoughtful comments here. A few fairly random thoughts of my own.

Supporting France is the only 'pro' argument for bombing in Syria, there must be some other way we can support them.

Corbyn is on the right side of non-tory-voting public opinion. Reliable polling would have to break more than 60:40 in favour of bombing for this not to be the case, assuming a good chunk of the 'fors' would be tory voters whom Corbyn is presumably not required to represent.

Is the press majoring on shadow cabinet splits because they want to support Cameron but can't actually find anyone to back him up?
The Syria page in yesterday's i broke down approx. 70% 'Shadow Cabinet in open revolt'; small panel in bold 'UK cannot stand aside, warns PM'; same size panel, not bold, 'Salmond misses debate'. And across the bottom 'Cameron's plan for Syria is full of wishful thinking' by Patrick Cockburn.

The shadow cabinet seem to me to be making an irresponsible extrapolation. The fact that Corbyn might vote against military action in any and all circumstances does not make him wrong this time. They should be considering the merits of the case first and putting their own egos and opinions of Corbyn's leadership second, or preferably nowhere. I am very disappointed that so many seem to support Cameron.

yahyah wrote:Have just twigged how to stop a pic being too large and skewing the page.
Remove the words 'large' at the end of the link.

Give that woman a medal.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Rebecca wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:If we think of Corbyn as PM now, with a free hand, how do you think he'd handle relations with France? He's talked about reforming the EU from inside, and he could pretty much kiss goodbye to French help if he didn't back them now, or give them practical support in some way. He could add them to the entirety of Eastern Europe with his anti-NATO stuff.

Can you imagine him achieving much? I can't, really. His school of leftist have always been so hostile to the EU, NATO etc, because they think in terms of themselves taking principled decisions in isolation. Internationalism is talking to people like them in other countries, even if they have zero importance.

It isn't really like that.

Well,Tubby,we can all imagine 'what if 'events with outcomes within the parameters of our own prejudices and experiences.
In the real world we have a PM who is more or less a laughing stock worldwide.(remember the dead pig fucking incident?),who has very little credibility in europe.
So,I will worry about the reality rather than fret about the notion that Corbyn,a backbencher until September,is now PM,Labour having lost the last two GEs.
Maybe,if more leaders were like Corbyn,who won the Ghandi peace prize,the world would be a better place.

You're comparing not supporting France now with Cameron pig fucking as a student? Which do you think the French care about?

Sure, it's a "what if he were PM" is a "what if". But his public position at least is that he wants to be PM.

The idea of "reconnecting" (for want of a better word) while opposing strongly was a good one though. He ought to have made that clear from the go. He can't do it so easily now because it'll precipitate a big internal conflict.

Not exactly.
What happened in Paris was awful and unforgivable.
Corbyn is saying that Camerons case for bombing Syria has nor been made,not that he doesn't support France.
I love Paris,lived in France,and would still be there if my daughter had not been so homesick for England,but that does not mean I think we should bomb Syria.
I was equally horrified by the huge loss of life when Russias' aeroplane was exploded by a bomb,and wonder why we are not all jumping up and down offering Mr Putin our armed support.

gilsey wrote:I appreciate all the thoughtful comments here. A few fairly random thoughts of my own.

Supporting France is the only 'pro' argument for bombing in Syria, there must be some other way we can support them.

Corbyn is on the right side of non-tory-voting public opinion. Reliable polling would have to break more than 60:40 in favour of bombing for this not to be the case, assuming a good chunk of the 'fors' would be tory voters whom Corbyn is presumably not required to represent.

Is the press majoring on shadow cabinet splits because they want to support Cameron but can't actually find anyone to back him up?
The Syria page in yesterday's i broke down approx. 70% 'Shadow Cabinet in open revolt'; small panel in bold 'UK cannot stand aside, warns PM'; same size panel, not bold, 'Salmond misses debate'. And across the bottom 'Cameron's plan for Syria is full of wishful thinking' by Patrick Cockburn.

The shadow cabinet seem to me to be making an irresponsible extrapolation. The fact that Corbyn might vote against military action in any and all circumstances does not make him wrong this time. They should be considering the merits of the case first and putting their own egos and opinions of Corbyn's leadership second, or preferably nowhere. I am very disappointed that so many seem to support Cameron.

Exactly.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The point about ISIL's money is a good one. That could be something Labour might want to emphasize more than it has. Could a united Labour motion be put together that the Government would support? If you can't stop something happening, adding important stuff to the public debate is the next best thing.

But Corbyn has been saying about the funding and arms sales. The snag is no-one's listening.

The Labour MP speaking for the against side on Syrian airstrikes opposite John Woodcock on BBC News 24 a moment ago was considerable better than Clive Lewis this morning. She was excellent in fact. And I'm afraid I didn't catch her name. Anyhow, she suggested Cameron hadn't made his case and explained why, very clearly and convincingly, she shot Cameron's arguments down one by one and said, at this point, she would be voting against.

I think the "at this point" bit is important. It throws the ball back into Cameron's court and undermines the "Labour threat to security" narrative. She mentioned the humanitarian aid being provided by the UK, showing how we are helping and "involved" and proactive in this conflict. Labour needs more people like her on the tv, making calm, intelligent points.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:If we think of Corbyn as PM now, with a free hand, how do you think he'd handle relations with France? He's talked about reforming the EU from inside, and he could pretty much kiss goodbye to French help if he didn't back them now, or give them practical support in some way. He could add them to the entirety of Eastern Europe with his anti-NATO stuff.

Can you imagine him achieving much? I can't, really. His school of leftist have always been so hostile to the EU, NATO etc, because they think in terms of themselves taking principled decisions in isolation. Internationalism is talking to people like them in other countries, even if they have zero importance.

It isn't really like that.

And I imagine suicidal terrorists on hell-bent adventures (like those recently in France) like dumb Tory PM Dave Cameron just fine. What a wonderful tool Dave is to use. We don't know how France's Hollande would interact with Corbyn as the UK's PM - what Dave Cameron is, Hollande the EU and the world knows.

I don't share your disapprobation of Corbyn's diplomatic abilities on the international stage. Corbyn knows weeding out small problems in order to prevent their growing into big ones is cost-effective, safe and provides security for nations of people. I have no reason to doubt Corbyn is anything other than a responsible man who knows the job description of Prime Minister of the UK in the 21st century. One of those responsibilities is working cooperatively with NATO, the EU and global leadership.

As a reminder, I didn't vote for Corbyn, I voted for Andy Burnham in the Labour party leadership election. The Labour leadership candidates all shared this in common: Every one of them are better equipped to form a safe and responsible UK government than any Tory on offer at this time. That's underwhelming praise, I grant you.

P.S. Would you have thought Corbyn would accept the invitation to be on the Her Majesty’s Privy Council prior to his doing so?

That's the mincemeat bottled up.,seeing as enough to fill two medium kilner jars contains 10oz brandy,'bottled up' is quite appropriate.
I love Christmas.

Yes, he has, and fair play to him. Was thinking specifically in terms of the debate in Parliament.

Corbyn has put some good points across. They worry him, and they worry many Labour members.

Can we at least admit there's a witch hunt on which is hindering extremely important questions that must be asked and answered before we begin to kill innocents.

Willow904 wrote:The Labour MP speaking for the against side on Syrian airstrikes opposite John Woodcock on BBC News 24 a moment ago was considerable better than Clive Lewis this morning. She was excellent in fact. And I'm afraid I didn't catch her name. Anyhow, she suggested Cameron hadn't made his case and explained why, very clearly and convincingly, she shot Cameron's arguments down one by one and said, at this point, she would be voting against.

I think the "at this point" bit is important. It throws the ball back into Cameron's court and undermines the "Labour threat to security" narrative. She mentioned the humanitarian aid being provided by the UK, showing how we are helping and "involved" and proactive in this conflict. Labour needs more people like her on the tv, making calm, intelligent points.

Emily Thornberry has been good on this. Might well have been her. There again - might well have been someone else!

Hope that helped . . . .

Willow904 wrote:The Labour MP speaking for the against side on Syrian airstrikes opposite John Woodcock on BBC News 24 a moment ago was considerable better than Clive Lewis this morning. She was excellent in fact. And I'm afraid I didn't catch her name. Anyhow, she suggested Cameron hadn't made his case and explained why, very clearly and convincingly, she shot Cameron's arguments down one by one and said, at this point, she would be voting against.

I think the "at this point" bit is important. It throws the ball back into Cameron's court and undermines the "Labour threat to security" narrative. She mentioned the humanitarian aid being provided by the UK, showing how we are helping and "involved" and proactive in this conflict. Labour needs more people like her on the tv, making calm, intelligent points.

Was is Yasmin Qureshi? I saw a clip of her on the news earlier.

What are the chances that Shapps will have to stand down, over the bullying etc allegations? Anyone?

ohsocynical wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The point about ISIL's money is a good one. That could be something Labour might want to emphasize more than it has. Could a united Labour motion be put together that the Government would support? If you can't stop something happening, adding important stuff to the public debate is the next best thing.

But Corbyn has been saying about the funding and arms sales. The snag is no-one's listening.

(my bold)

Correct. What media decide to focus on isn't necessarily democratic, fair, responsible or good. Most of media is owned and controlled by an elite uninterested in security or prosperity for everyone, just themselves. I've no idea what to do about it other than be wary of media, check sources over and over and hope like hell I get some truth.

ohsocynical wrote:Corbyn has put some good points across. They worry him, and they worry many Labour members.

Can we at least admit there's a witch hunt on which is hindering extremely important questions that must be asked and answered before we begin to kill innocents.

Correct.
Why worry about the realiities of going to war when we can be screaming blue murder about Corbyns perceived lack of leadership qualities?
It's like everything in this country is seen through a lens of Jeremy Corbyn bashing.He is the leader of the opposition,let's have a spotlight on the bloody PM and his arguments for killing more civilians than terrorists?
How awful for those poor people living in Raqqa,just waiting for the bombs to rain down on them,while Isis are reportedly mostly long gone.

citizenJA wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:If we think of Corbyn as PM now, with a free hand, how do you think he'd handle relations with France? He's talked about reforming the EU from inside, and he could pretty much kiss goodbye to French help if he didn't back them now, or give them practical support in some way. He could add them to the entirety of Eastern Europe with his anti-NATO stuff.

Can you imagine him achieving much? I can't, really. His school of leftist have always been so hostile to the EU, NATO etc, because they think in terms of themselves taking principled decisions in isolation. Internationalism is talking to people like them in other countries, even if they have zero importance.

It isn't really like that.

And I imagine suicidal terrorists on hell-bent adventures (like those recently in France) like dumb Tory PM Dave Cameron just fine. What a wonderful tool Dave is to use. We don't know how France's Hollande would interact with Corbyn as the UK's PM - what Dave Cameron is, Hollande the EU and the world knows.

I don't share your disapprobation of Corbyn's diplomatic abilities on the international stage. Corbyn knows weeding out small problems in order to prevent their growing into big ones is cost-effective, safe and provides security for nations of people. I have no reason to doubt Corbyn is anything other than a responsible man who knows the job description of Prime Minister of the UK in the 21st century. One of those responsibilities is working cooperatively with NATO, the EU and global leadership.

As a reminder, I didn't vote for Corbyn, I voted for Andy Burnham in the Labour party leadership election. The Labour leadership candidates all shared this in common: Every one of them are better equipped to form a safe and responsible UK government than any Tory on offer at this time. That's underwhelming praise, I grant you.

P.S. Would you have thought Corbyn would accept the invitation to be on the Her Majesty’s Privy Council prior to his doing so?

I hadn't really thought about it.

I think Cameron's diplomatic abilities have been useless, to be clear, particularly with France- see his "roll out the red carpet" bollocks. When he got close to France, that was disastrous too, he and Sarko in Libya.

But he'll get that back by supporting France now.

refitman wrote:What are the chances that Shapps will have to stand down, over the bullying etc allegations? Anyone?

Think he already has?See Guardian .

refitman wrote:What are the chances that Shapps will have to stand down, over the bullying etc allegations? Anyone?

I was mightily surprised Shapps resigned the Tory party chair government minister over this. Wonder what's going on?

edited to correct the post he'd resigned from

Rebecca wrote:

refitman wrote:What are the chances that Shapps will have to stand down, over the bullying etc allegations? Anyone?

Think he already has?See Guardian .

He's resigned as Int. Development Sec., I'm talking about as an MP. By all rights, we should be seeing a by-election coming over the horizon. I'm betting not though.

citizenJA wrote:

refitman wrote:What are the chances that Shapps will have to stand down, over the bullying etc allegations? Anyone?

I was mightily surprised Shapps resigned the Tory party chair over this. Wonder what's going on?

Well,apparently Shapps penned Daves support for Clarke,and now Dave is 'apoplectic'.
Could be Shapps taking the fall for this one,not the squeaky clean PM.

citizenJA wrote:

refitman wrote:What are the chances that Shapps will have to stand down, over the bullying etc allegations? Anyone?

I was mightily surprised Shapps resigned the Tory party chair over this. Wonder what's going on?

He's not Chair, Feldman is. He was Chair when Warsi sent the letter to him though.

refitman wrote:

Rebecca wrote:

refitman wrote:What are the chances that Shapps will have to stand down, over the bullying etc allegations? Anyone?

Think he already has?See Guardian .

He's resigned as Int. Development Sec., I'm talking about as an MP. By all rights, we should be seeing a by-election coming over the horizon. I'm betting not though.

Sorry,didn't realise.

Rebecca wrote:

refitman wrote:

Rebecca wrote:
Think he already has?See Guardian .

He's resigned as Int. Development Sec., I'm talking about as an MP. By all rights, we should be seeing a by-election coming over the horizon. I'm betting not though.

Sorry,didn't realise.

No worries. I'm sure Michael or Sebastian will be taking over the vacated post soon.

Rebecca wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Corbyn has put some good points across. They worry him, and they worry many Labour members.

Can we at least admit there's a witch hunt on which is hindering extremely important questions that must be asked and answered before we begin to kill innocents.

Correct.
Why worry about the realiities of going to war when we can be screaming blue murder about Corbyns perceived lack of leadership qualities?
It's like everything in this country is seen through a lens of Jeremy Corbyn bashing.He is the leader of the opposition,let's have a spotlight on the bloody PM and his arguments for killing more civilians than terrorists?
How awful for those poor people living in Raqqa,just waiting for the bombs to rain down on them,while Isis are reportedly mostly long gone.

When the leader is useless, this is what happens.
Same thing happened with John Major, the discord was the story, not the Single Currency.

It looks now like there'll be a free vote, which I was against before, but I think it's good now, and it can move on.

Anyway, apologies for my Corbyn echo chamber stuff!

As you all know Mr Ohso is American...He's been in the UK a long time now and has become an anglophile, but every so often blood will out and he reverts to a 'nuke the bastards', mode.

There were some awesome rows in our house when we invaded Iraq.
Not this time though. He says the same as me, and, as it happens, Corbyn. Where's the money coming from, and cut down on selling arms to every faction in the Middle East before we start dropping bombs willy-nilly.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Anyway, apologies for my Corbyn echo chamber stuff!

Don't worry, we'll indoctrinate you soon

Can you imagine if Labour had cut the armed forces and now proposed building them back up?

They'd be crucified.

Rebecca wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

refitman wrote:What are the chances that Shapps will have to stand down, over the bullying etc allegations? Anyone?

I was mightily surprised Shapps resigned the Tory party chair over this. Wonder what's going on?

Well,apparently Shapps penned Daves support for Clarke,and now Dave is 'apoplectic'.
Could be Shapps taking the fall for this one,not the squeaky clean PM.

Cameron has form over it being nothing to do with him when he makes wrong choices eg: Coulson.
And Shapps wouldn't know 'truth', if it bit him on the nose. Talk about tangled webs...

refitman wrote:

Willow904 wrote:The Labour MP speaking for the against side on Syrian airstrikes opposite John Woodcock on BBC News 24 a moment ago was considerable better than Clive Lewis this morning. She was excellent in fact. And I'm afraid I didn't catch her name. Anyhow, she suggested Cameron hadn't made his case and explained why, very clearly and convincingly, she shot Cameron's arguments down one by one and said, at this point, she would be voting against.

I think the "at this point" bit is important. It throws the ball back into Cameron's court and undermines the "Labour threat to security" narrative. She mentioned the humanitarian aid being provided by the UK, showing how we are helping and "involved" and proactive in this conflict. Labour needs more people like her on the tv, making calm, intelligent points.

Was is Yasmin Qureshi? I saw a clip of her on the news earlier.

Not sure. Maybe. I might have to check iplayer later as it's bugging me now. I was doing the ironing and listening rather than watching.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Rebecca wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Corbyn has put some good points across. They worry him, and they worry many Labour members.

Can we at least admit there's a witch hunt on which is hindering extremely important questions that must be asked and answered before we begin to kill innocents.

Correct.
Why worry about the realiities of going to war when we can be screaming blue murder about Corbyns perceived lack of leadership qualities?
It's like everything in this country is seen through a lens of Jeremy Corbyn bashing.He is the leader of the opposition,let's have a spotlight on the bloody PM and his arguments for killing more civilians than terrorists?
How awful for those poor people living in Raqqa,just waiting for the bombs to rain down on them,while Isis are reportedly mostly long gone.

When the leader is useless, this is what happens.
Same thing happened with John Major, the discord was the story, not the Single Currency.

It looks now like there'll be a free vote, which I was against before, but I think it's good now, and it can move on.

You haven't forgotten the sleaze during Major's reign have you? That also played a big part...

Rebecca wrote:That's the mincemeat bottled up.,seeing as enough to fill two medium kilner jars contains 10oz brandy,'bottled up' is quite appropriate.
I love Christmas.

I am going to envy you...

Doc did some tests on me the other week and thinks the drugs I've been taking long term have wrecked my liver, so I can't even have my occasional drink.
Having a scan on Wednesday and more blood tests but it'll be just my luck she's right.

ohsocynical wrote:

Rebecca wrote:That's the mincemeat bottled up.,seeing as enough to fill two medium kilner jars contains 10oz brandy,'bottled up' is quite appropriate.
I love Christmas.

I am going to envy you...

Doc did some tests on me the other week and thinks the drugs I've been taking long term have wrecked my liver, so I can't even have my occasional drink.
Having a scan on Wednesday and more blood tests but it'll be just my luck she's right.

Oh, bummer. Here's hoping the test results still allow you your occasional tipple.

Rebecca wrote:That's the mincemeat bottled up.,seeing as enough to fill two medium kilner jars contains 10oz brandy,'bottled up' is quite appropriate.
I love Christmas.

Wonderful! I love Christmas too. A gorgeous Christmas pudding hot, hot, hot with double cream on top...

citizenJA wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The point about ISIL's money is a good one. That could be something Labour might want to emphasize more than it has. Could a united Labour motion be put together that the Government would support? If you can't stop something happening, adding important stuff to the public debate is the next best thing.

But Corbyn has been saying about the funding and arms sales. The snag is no-one's listening.

(my bold)

Correct. What media decide to focus on isn't necessarily democratic, fair, responsible or good. Most of media is owned and controlled by an elite uninterested in security or prosperity for everyone, just themselves. I've no idea what to do about it other than be wary of media, check sources over and over and hope like hell I get some truth.

Due to being so bad with names I'd not 'clocked' Corbyn before he stood for leader. Didn't have a clue who he was, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that he agreed with my view point on most things.

He's had no influence on me whatsover. I was already there.

ohsocynical wrote:

Rebecca wrote:That's the mincemeat bottled up.,seeing as enough to fill two medium kilner jars contains 10oz brandy,'bottled up' is quite appropriate.
I love Christmas.

I am going to envy you...

Doc did some tests on me the other week and thinks the drugs I've been taking long term have wrecked my liver, so I can't even have my occasional drink.
Having a scan on Wednesday and more blood tests but it'll be just my luck she's right.

Love to you Love to Mr. ohso

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Can you imagine if Labour had cut the armed forces and now proposed building them back up?

They'd be crucified.

The Tories have form. They did the same under Thatcher; if Galtieri could have waited a year the UK would have had no aircraft carriers, as Hermes would have been mothballed and Invincible would have been in service with the Australians - considering Osborne studied modern history he seems to have learned very little!!! Part of Labour's "reckless spending" was necessary & urgent Defence funding to patch the holes the Tories had left!!

Willow904 wrote:The Labour MP speaking for the against side on Syrian airstrikes opposite John Woodcock on BBC News 24 a moment ago was considerable better than Clive Lewis this morning. She was excellent in fact. And I'm afraid I didn't catch her name. Anyhow, she suggested Cameron hadn't made his case and explained why, very clearly and convincingly, she shot Cameron's arguments down one by one and said, at this point, she would be voting against.

I think the "at this point" bit is important. It throws the ball back into Cameron's court and undermines the "Labour threat to security" narrative. She mentioned the humanitarian aid being provided by the UK, showing how we are helping and "involved" and proactive in this conflict. Labour needs more people like her on the tv, making calm, intelligent points.

David Lammy was similarly clear and convincing in his reasons for being against at this point on This Week the other night. Peter Hain has also written well on why he is too. Graham Allen has written for Huffington Post ... and so on.

Seems to me there are Labour voices articulating why they are against from all parts of the party. It should have nothing to do with Corbyn and be all about the debate they are contributing to.

ohsocynical wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

ohsocynical wrote: But Corbyn has been saying about the funding and arms sales. The snag is no-one's listening.

(my bold)

Correct. What media decide to focus on isn't necessarily democratic, fair, responsible or good. Most of media is owned and controlled by an elite uninterested in security or prosperity for everyone, just themselves. I've no idea what to do about it other than be wary of media, check sources over and over and hope like hell I get some truth.

Due to being so bad with names I'd not 'clocked' Corbyn before he stood for leader. Didn't have a clue who he was, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that he agreed with my view point on most things.

He's had no influence on me whatsover. I was already there.

We'd all be happier, more secure, prosperous and healthy, in general, with a Labour government. Maybe some very wealthy would have a little (for them) less. Jesus christ almighty. What is the problem? None but fear masters' delusions.

ohsocynical wrote:As you all know Mr Ohso is American...He's been in the UK a long time now and has become an anglophile, but every so often blood will out and he reverts to a 'nuke the bastards', mode.

There were some awesome rows in our house when we invaded Iraq.
Not this time though. He says the same as me, and, as it happens, Corbyn. Where's the money coming from, and cut down on selling arms to every faction in the Middle East before we start dropping bombs willy-nilly.

Live and learn - good for everyone.

James Tapsfield ‏@JamesTapsfield 33m33 minutes ago
Downing Street making clear that Lord Feldman still has PM's "full confidence"

Wonderful news.

(How worried Feldman should be by that endorsement probably depends on the amount of money he brings in to the Conservatives. I understand it's quite a lot ... so he'll probably be nailed to his perch by Cameron even if he's dead.)

@ohsocynical

Thanks, ohso. Yeah I close the windows after the heating's been on a while and then let the warm radiators take the chill off, assuming it's that cold of course. My lads have commented on how strange I am as I'm usually hot-blooded in the morning and don't get nesh till later.

Time to find that cat.

PorFavor wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:

Rebecca wrote:That's the mincemeat bottled up.,seeing as enough to fill two medium kilner jars contains 10oz brandy,'bottled up' is quite appropriate.
I love Christmas.

I am going to envy you...

Doc did some tests on me the other week and thinks the drugs I've been taking long term have wrecked my liver, so I can't even have my occasional drink.
Having a scan on Wednesday and more blood tests but it'll be just my luck she's right.

Oh, bummer. Here's hoping the test results still allow you your occasional tipple.

Don't want to be too intrusive but hope things ok with you PorFavor.
Your post about the need for wheelchair friendly flooring suggest it may not be.

refitman wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

refitman wrote:What are the chances that Shapps will have to stand down, over the bullying etc allegations? Anyone?

I was mightily surprised Shapps resigned the Tory party chair over this. Wonder what's going on?

He's not Chair, Feldman is. He was Chair when Warsi sent the letter to him though.

Oops...apologies and thank you for pointing that out.

Grant Shapps, the former chairman of the Conservative party, has resigned as a government minister, Downing Street has confirmed, following Guardian revelations that he failed to act over alleged bullying in the party.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ng-scandal

'Shapps said the “buck should stop with me” over issues that arose while he was chairman.'

He'll want a reward for his failure now.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

James Tapsfield ‏@JamesTapsfield 33m33 minutes ago
Downing Street making clear that Lord Feldman still has PM's "full confidence"

Wonderful news.

(How worried Feldman should be by that endorsement probably depends on the amount of money he brings in to the Conservatives. I understand it's quite a lot ... so he'll probably be nailed to his perch by Cameron even if he's dead.)

That gave me the best mental picture I've had in a long time.
Cameron, with his sleeves rolled up, hammering Feldman's feet to a perch.

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 8m8 minutes ago
Cameron concludes his letter to Shapps with: "I know you have much more to give in the years ahead." Code for "you can come back sometime".

If so - just shows what a big fool he is. If Cameron departs and Osborne becomes Tory leader I can't see him being quite so indulgent of the Shapps shambles.