FlyTheNest

yahyah wrote:World at One say Owen Smith & Eagle are slugging it out for who delivers the coup de grace.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:They were saying that nearly a week ago - GET ON WITH IT FFS!!

yahyah wrote:If they had been responsible for getting rid of Caesar there'd have been nothing for Shakespeare to write about.

StephenDolan wrote:

frightful_oik wrote:Listened to 5Live this morning where they were giving the teachers' strike extra coverage. Can't remember the name of the reporter, (Clive Barnett perhaps?), but he was dreadful. If I say he said 'These commie traitors should be hung', I'd only be slightly exaggerating.
Then they had a debate with a striker and some woman from the Campaign for Real Education. What a thicko! (CfRE woman obvs). Why do these people who oppose all strikes always insist they support the right to strike? They don't.

Speak to someone from either side equals balanced coverage ©BBC

Dr. Strangelove: or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb EU referendum

President Merkin Muffley:
“Hello? Hello, Dimitri? Listen, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?
Oh, that's much better. Yes. Fine, I can hear you now, Dimitri. Clear and plain and coming through fine. I'm coming
through fine too, eh? Good, then. Well then as you say we're both coming through fine. Good. Well it's good that you're
fine and I'm fine. I agree with you. It's great to be fine. <laughs>

Now then Dimitri. You know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the bomb EU Referendum.
The bomb EU Referendum, Dimitri. The hydrogen bomb EU Referendum. Well now what happened is, one of our base commanders
Prime Ministers, he had a sort of, well he went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little... funny. And uh, he went and
did a silly thing.

Well, I'll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes EU Referendum ... to attack your our country.”

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The point is, the electoral system used for leadership elections means they could perfectly well both stand anyway. So why don't they?

Bank of England releases £150bn of lending and warns on financial stability

The Bank of England warned on Tuesday of “challenging” risks to financial stability following the vote for Brexit as it
released £150bn of lending to households and businesses by relaxing regulatory requirements on the banking sector.

As it published its twice-yearly report, the Bank said the risks it had feared ahead of the Brexit poll had started to
materialise, with sterling plunging to 31-year lows and the shares of banks falling by 20%.

As a result, the FPC, chaired by the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, is monitoring a number of sectors closely.
It is on alert for threats to financial stability from rapid growth in buy-to-let mortgage lending and also for the impact
of downturn in the commercial property sector.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -stability" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NonOxCol wrote:Great Britain, 2016. Re-calibrate your irony/facepalm meters before clicking, otherwise they will surely explode:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If only you'd had a platform to warn voters. Oh.

There was, as it happens, some parting chat on Europe. She told me leaving would be madness and that proper Brexit would be insane.

Willow904 wrote:I follow this guy on Twitter, he writes a political blog and has appeared in the Independent and he doesn't seem keen on Andrea Leadsom. Not sure if the following is accurate (he's remembering a meeting from some years back) but it seems curiously consistent from this lot of Tories:

There was, as it happens, some parting chat on Europe. She told me leaving would be madness and that proper Brexit would be insane.

http://nicktyrone.com/need-experience-g ... e-leadsom/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still think they're up to something. What does she mean by proper Brexit? Is there some other kind?

Aviva Joins Standard Life in Freezing Property Fund After Brexit

RobertSnozers wrote: I'm assuming that if they lose, they're going to take their ball back and form SDP2 anyway

Willow904 wrote:I follow this guy on Twitter, he writes a political blog and has appeared in the Independent and he doesn't seem keen on Andrea Leadsom. Not sure if the following is accurate (he's remembering a meeting from some years back) but it seems curiously consistent from this lot of Tories:

There was, as it happens, some parting chat on Europe. She told me leaving would be madness and that proper Brexit would be insane.

http://nicktyrone.com/need-experience-g ... e-leadsom/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still think they're up to something. What does she mean by proper Brexit? Is there some other kind?

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Willow904 wrote:I follow this guy on Twitter, he writes a political blog and has appeared in the Independent and he doesn't seem keen on Andrea Leadsom. Not sure if the following is accurate (he's remembering a meeting from some years back) but it seems curiously consistent from this lot of Tories:

There was, as it happens, some parting chat on Europe. She told me leaving would be madness and that proper Brexit would be insane.

http://nicktyrone.com/need-experience-g ... e-leadsom/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still think they're up to something. What does she mean by proper Brexit? Is there some other kind?

I expect it means "Proper Brexit for everyone else but protecting the City firms so they won't notice any difference."

StephenDolan wrote:Lord Lawson says in the House of Lords that Brexit is a chance to finish what Thatcher started. Maaaaaaarvelous.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bre ... 20216.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
When prominent political figures dehumanise immigrants, it gives the green light for ordinary people to do the same. What has been uncorked will be very difficult to contain. This could be the initial eruption of a much bigger political volcano.

Willow904 wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Willow904 wrote:I follow this guy on Twitter, he writes a political blog and has appeared in the Independent and he doesn't seem keen on Andrea Leadsom. Not sure if the following is accurate (he's remembering a meeting from some years back) but it seems curiously consistent from this lot of Tories:
http://nicktyrone.com/need-experience-g ... e-leadsom/

I still think they're up to something. What does she mean by proper Brexit? Is there some other kind?

I expect it means "Proper Brexit for everyone else but protecting the City firms so they won't notice any difference."

Ah, thanks Roger. I'm not very good at Tory speak. Does this London/Frankfurt thing achieve that, I wonder? Starting to wonder if Brexit was the goal all along. As my husband pointed out, choosing the week everyone's cheering on the home nations in the Euro's and all the bunting's out for the Queen's 90th is a bit of an odd choice if you're relying on people feeling more European than all patriotic and British to win your vote.

As things stand, that candidate looks like Andrea Leadsom, the business minister, who has never sat at the cabinet table. Leadsom is not in fact an out-and-out anti-European. As she said in 2013, in words that have suddenly become famous: “I don’t think the UK should leave the EU. I think it would be a disaster for our economy and it would lead to a decade of economic and political uncertainty at a time when the tectonic plates of global success are moving.” I can personally confirm from listening to her at about the same time that Leadsom was not in favour of leaving.

minch wrote:If Labour are unelectable why don't the Conservatives want a GE?

Willow904 wrote:

minch wrote:If Labour are unelectable why don't the Conservatives want a GE?

The Libdems might get some of their seats back?

Besides, they want to reduce parliament and draw up new boundaries before the next election.

ohsocynical wrote:In 2014, under pressure from the Conservative party, then Labour leader Ed Miliband changed the rules on party elections. In a decision that some said “could alter the course of history” Miliband revised the rules to ensure that all union members would have to explicitly ‘opt-in‘ to support the party, and be given an individual vote in elections as affiliated supporters. He also introduced the option for people to become ‘registered supporters’ by paying a £3 fee. These supporters were also promised a vote in any leadership contest. At the time, Miliband explained his decision to encourage more supporters through these avenues:

"If we can be a party of 400,000 people genuinely engaged, this will make us more reflective of the country we seek to govern. In turn that means Labour is less likely to lose touch in government, and instead represent the beating heart of Britain"

On 4 July The Guardian published an article quoting several anonymous Labour sources. The focus of these nameless commentators was whether registered supporters will have any say in the upcoming leadership challenge, and the answer was a resounding ‘Not if we can help it!’.
Any registered supporters who signed up prior to the leadership election – just nine months ago – will not be able to automatically vote again in the next one, as they have no “ongoing” relationship with the party, sources said. And for those thinking, ‘I’ll just sign up again then’, the shadowy sources have a very stark message: there’s no guarantee it’ll be £3 next time. In fact, one commentator threatened:

"It could be free, it could be £50,000 – there’s nothing to say it has to be £3"

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/05/labo ... -election/

minch wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

minch wrote:If Labour are unelectable why don't the Conservatives want a GE?

The Libdems might get some of their seats back?

Besides, they want to reduce parliament and draw up new boundaries before the next election.

Possibly but we are told that Labour will do very badly under Corbyn and that with Cons winning they would have longer to bring in new boundaries (as they might be a bit busy on other things).

RobertSnozers wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

minch wrote:If Labour are unelectable why don't the Conservatives want a GE?

The Libdems might get some of their seats back?

Besides, they want to reduce parliament and draw up new boundaries before the next election.

Many Tory backbenchers don't.

LibDems getting seats back? Not in my lifetime.

Willow904 wrote:

minch wrote:

Willow904 wrote: The Libdems might get some of their seats back?

Besides, they want to reduce parliament and draw up new boundaries before the next election.

Possibly but we are told that Labour will do very badly under Corbyn and that with Cons winning they would have longer to bring in new boundaries (as they might be a bit busy on other things).

They'd gain barely over a year and it wouldn't be straightforward to call an election with the 5 year parliaments. I think a snap election unlikely.

Edited to remove back to front comment that made no sense!

PorFavor wrote:Hillary Clinton e-mail account - FBI to bring no charges. But overall, I got the impression that they're not impressed by her behaviour.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Trump predicted she wouldn't be charged in a tweet the other day. Of course, this was described as a "conspiracy"......