blandy

Those two things are the same thing. The Government "redistributing" revenue they take from various taxes IS "Government spending" (not all of the Gov't's spending, but it absolutely is some of it).

It came up on my twitter earlier, where Dominic Grieve was saying in some TV interview, that Cummings understanding "is simply wrong" on the whole VONC and what happens next thing.Grieve was fairly insistent that (as I blearily understood him) if Johnson lost a VONC, then a crash out Brexit could absolutely be stopped.

That. That's what they're doing.

So we're down to third? Smith out!

They should be somewhere way down the pecking order. Surely there should be consistency. For example, when terrorists who are muslims have done attacks, the idea of "and the religious leanings of the scumbag were... " is quite rightly called out as trying to pin blame on muslims generally. So same with this. This latest terrorist bell end may have been Republican (or whatever) leaning, politically, but trying to pin blame on Republicans generally for this murdering whooper is not the way to go - is it? Better to concentrate on radicalisation, extremism, prevention, monitoring, gun control and all the rest, surely? It's true, I think, that right wing/republican types need to reflect on how what they say and do might influence people, how those in positions of responsibility need to not preach hate, but tolerance and how they might do well to pay more attention to the ones they see or hear talking about terror or hate or etc. whether in real life or on the facebook etc. Maybe report more people to the police. Perhaps the feds need to have a word with that fat fella - you know the one, a sort of blow-hard tangerine turd type - goes by the name of (something like) "The Resident" or "The Dim old", though I may have misheard.

The washing machine died. Smoke came out of it, the drum pretty much siezed up and made a horrible gravelly noise. When I drained it, bits of sort of ceramicy rubble came out. Then when I disconnected it all, I had to change some of the pipes under the sink, so that the sink could be drained. The pipes needed cleaning out, too. There was some residue gathered there, restricting water-flow. I went on an internet and ordered another washing machine today and when it comes, I'll have to reverse the removal process. I had thought about repair, but based on the age of the old one, and the multiple faults, it's probably better to get a new one and let the 19 year old machine go to the Broken household appliance national forest.

Fancy foreign muck, that! And onion gravy's a bit posh for Burnley, so was that 'eck as like 'is wages.

Very much agree. It “looked” deliberate, and he had previous. At the time the weight of balance, I think, supported your view. I don’t think I said so, but I shared it. Since then there’s been a whole lot of evidence of his character and nature that tilts the balance back towards it probably wasn’t deliberate.

Two tiny quote extracts, but I think (at least for me) if I speak as a private citizen about something my Company is doing or did, then there is no legal leg to stand on for my Co. to sack me, or discipline me. Of course with an MP, it's to an extent different, because they are always both, but "As a resident of Town, I reject Fracking and the risks associated with it, even though it's X party policy" is a frequent type of an MP objection/rebellion. Or "as a shareholder I am massively disappointed with the performance of the shares under the Chairmanship of X" - it's fine. On HV's quote - both peter and HV seem to take the (perfectly fair) view that "members decide and they can decide what the heck they like". That's fine as a view. My observational point is that if/where this goes against wider interests of the local community, say then our political and voting (election) system can mean that good people are binned off because entryists or whoever effectively hijack/legitimately*, democratically decide to hoof out whoever. * delete as appropriate to your views. As HV says "there are consequences" - and not just politically, but for the local population or nation. Just because Blairites allegedly did X, doesn't mean it's OK for Corbynites to allegedly do it. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Anyway, Labour's stuffed with Corbyn as leader and his angry tramps trying to deselect large numbers of MPs. Comply or die (metaphorically) is not a good ethos for an open, broad church kind of party. The tories have gone the same way. They're goosed, too.

Yet another example of woolly thinking by this Gov't.

My perception is very much the opposite of that. An MPs performance as an MP, where they have a duty to represent ALL their constituents, rather than do what their local party wants them to. Though I suppose it's a partially grey area because if an MP has one set of views and a leader another - then the MP will almost, by default, either be speaking against the party and Leader's (new) line or failing to properly put across their views. Mostly, my perception is that MPs, and Labour in particular wants to remove those not "loyal to Jeremy". It's nothing to do with how well they've done their jobs as MPs representing the constituents, and all to do with "She said Jeremy needed to do more on AS" etc. We even had Chris Williamson a year or so ago, going round the constituencies of MPs he felt insufficiently loyal to Saint Jeremy, with his "Democracy Roadshow" sort of wondering out loud if "carry on like you are and you might have a little democratic accident". That's former PFI supporting, Tory co-operating, Chris Williamson (now suspended) MP.

The EU are on their holidays too, so not much negotiating of some dream new Unicorn agreement is going to be done (if any). So it'll either be another kick down the road, or a massive showdown. Happy Days.

That would be nice, but I fear the people he's picked ot be his team, being almost universally a bunch of throbbers, means not (in as much as there's any kind of plan at all).

Please stay at least slightly on topic Villans (and Lupine visitors). Ta.

Len McLuskey is extremely influential and close with Catweazle, unfortunately. He's been spouting off on everything from AS to Brexit for a while. I cancelled the political part of my Union fees to Unite because of him and the way he [note to self, don't write a libel] "won" the Unite leadership contest, amongst other things. But probably the unions overall are no more left or right than previously.

Much of that is fair comment, though I'm not sure I see all of Labour's problems (and there are many) down to Corbyn. The LP is massively divided, and my comment was in the context of him being (possibly) claimed as just the type of character to bring together a divided party. He hasn't, IMO, he's made it much more divided. The aspect of MPs and party selection (and it applies ot any party, really) is interesting. If, say, an party MP has been in a seat for a good while, consistent large majorities from the voters, and then the party Leader changes and is now someone who holds different kinds of views, should that MP be removed because 65 out of 100 Local Party members have the hump with them? - it applies to Tories in seats where loads of former UKIP members have joined, or Labour where momentum types have joined, or wherever. Isn't there also an aspect of the overall constituency repeatedly voting in the MP by large numbers being effectively deprived of a good MP by a few 10s or a couple of hundred Brexity throbbers - like with Johnson becoming PM via the votes of a tiny fraction of the countiry's electorate? There has to be recognition of parties being able to choose who represents them, but also of voters (wider than just the party) not having their wishes overridden. Whether Blair or Corbyn, May or Major, parties have always placed some "preferred" candidates in some seats - either to give them a first taste of an election or to actually get them elected. As you say many local parties accept that. Some moan, some really kick-off. I'm sure we won't see Corbyn's son, or any of his Union leader chums' children or favourites getting cushy seats, right?

I don't know what these centrist Dads maintain (or indeed who they are) - are you talking about "if only we could find a new messiah" people? But surely the "messiah" thing is something that is (or was) kind of attached to Saint Jeremy by the momentum lot - all the "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn" chanting, the cult of Corbyn stuff and how he's all different and has principles, not like other politicians. The article is dead right that "finding a messiah" doesn't solve anything. It's wholly unrealistic. Jeremy wasn't the prvious one, and whoever's next won't be either. The other parts of the article, seem fairly standard common sense. They also seem to identify exactly why Corbyn is struggling. "For Labour, I’d contend, it is a need to unite the PLP and grassroots. This requires emollience, charisma and person-management skills rather than a talent for policy development, because in the economic sphere at least this has been going well." The PLP and grassroots are not only not for uniting, it's Corbyn more than anyone who has disunited them. He's about as divisive a charachter as you could imagine (in the Labour party). Further "We should ask of leaders: what processes have you put in place to facilitate improvement? It could be that the best such processes require less "strong leadership" and more decentralized or collegiate decision-making " Probably best steer clear of the anti-semitism stuff, but there's not much evidence (i.e. none at all) that Corbyn's done well with this. Again, the opposite applies. As the article extract concludes, it's maybe too far gone now, whoever and however they take over.

Nags head I think - the one with the beer garden on't roof

That pub round the back of the place about 8 ish Bicks?

We’re saying the same thing. The production cost in pounds rises. The cost in Euros falls. The WTO tariff rate on cars is 10%. The EU, in a no deal Brexit could not treat UK car imports differently to those from other nations they have no deal with. Same applies across the world. so a big fall in the pound v other currencies has to make cars built in the UK more costly to build (in pound, the UK currency). Under no deal WTO scenario, even with other nations and trading areas imposing tariffs, the selling price abroad (but not in the UK) could fall. So we Brits get more expensive cars, the rest of the world gets, potentially, cheaper ones. The cars we make to sell abroad, will, of course have to meet all the rules and standards the EU etc imposes. Take back control!

That's right, they did to an extent. So Labour went more left and gave them more ammo. It'd have less of an effect if they moved back towards the centre, not further away, particularly as most people and voters actually want "non-extreme" politics. I'm just talking tactics here, and observations, not what I want as an individual (though binning off Corbyn is definitely something I think would be a good move.

As a local constituency MP, Corbyn was OK. He could follow his desire to focus on Islington interest things like talking to the IRA, Hamas, whoever, or hailing Chavez in Venezuela and it didn't matter. But as a leader, and even more so as a potential prime minister, that "judgement" does matter. That world outlook is far more significant. It's not just a talking point for some posh Londoners to cogitate over free range cocaine and organic quinoa dinner parties. He could as a local MP, work to help his constituents with whatever problems they had with the Gas Board or the council and all was well with the world. He could rebel frequently on all sorts of things, and it didn't matter. Right or wrong, he could indulge his views, for the good or for the bad. He could talk to folk on a calm level and appear human and decent and eccentric and it didn't matter, it helped a few folk feel better about things, feel their consciences were a little clearer, perhaps. But as a leader where competence and judgement are critical, he's no sort of candidate at all. His instincts are awry by a long way on too many things. He can't bring his party with him. He deigns not to involve himself with the media and then people wonder why most of the media is not overly kind to him. By not "playing the game" he's not helping his party, or his chances. It's not the media's doing that he's not romping ahead in the polls against a succession of utterly appalling, dreadful, woefully bad tory opponents - it's his fault, his responsibility, his burden. He's got his supporters, and fair play to those who like or rate him, but too much of the country simply don't for his, or Labour under him, to ever get elected as Government. He's an asset (much as he won't like it) for the tories, and more horror from them. When even his closest friends and long-standing supporters like Abbott and McDonnell describe car crash and are worried about the direction, there's clearly more than the media to be looking at. He's an incompetent arse.

One of the things the tories have been saying is "vote me to keep Corbyn Out" - dangling the "threat" of a "Hard Left Corbyn Government" to keep voters and Tory MPs onside against Catweazle. Get rid of Catweazle and the threat of ""vote me to keep [Kier Starmer or Yvette Cooper or whoever] Out" - dangling the "threat" of a "Centrist Labour Government" or whatever is rather less of a weapon for the throbbers - in terms of "he'll/she'll wreck this country" because they know it won't wash. Corbyn is a useful asset for the tories in that regard. Not his fault at all, (other than by dint of being a clueless berk). So I'm with Bicks on the logic of it all.

May I refer you to Mark's post of 4 years ago

Very Good by whoever runs his twitter for him.