maebee wrote: » I read Surf's post as it was Cummings who was the leaker.
Memnoch wrote: » I think I would be repeating myself and dragging the discussion off-topic to get into more detail on this with you right now. But happy to do so via p.m. if you are interested. But it is absolutely ludicrous to say that he is out brexiting the brexiteers when you look at the actual policy position from labor on offer. I think if you believe that, genuinely, then it only proves my point to the extent of the smear campaign and propaganda that have been leveled against him.
Memnoch wrote: But it is absolutely ludicrous to say that he is out brexiting the brexiteers when you look at the actual policy position from labor on offer. I think if you believe that, genuinely, then it only proves my point to the extent of the smear campaign and propaganda that have been leveled against him.
Water John wrote: » Amazing that Corbyn is the main discussion topic here. It's the PM is knee deep in sh1te.
serfboard wrote: » My money's on Cummings.
briany wrote: » I see a few heads saying that the UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule on matters of politics. This can't be true if they have successfully done so, though?
J Mysterio wrote: » Exactly this:https://twitter.com/stevenjbarnett/status/1176513335958880256 Kuenssburg put out three tweets with full quotes (no soundbites/ paraphrasing) from another 'no. 10 source'. She is still just regurgitating the stuff and with no analysis of it. Why is she doing that? Should she not put their name to it? I know that from time to time there are 'off the record' type things (fair enough), but with Kuenssburg, it's a daily occurence. Surely that is not legitimate journalism - she has to pressure people and oust this stuff on the record.
J Mysterio wrote: » People have many legitimate criticisms of Corbyn and they are right to air them. He has failed as an opposition leader during the worst UK crisis since WWII, letting the Tories away with absolute murder. He failed in the referendum to provide clarity. His party is still split and he is doing his best to avoid stating a clear opinion. I hold him in contempt.
We are very keen that there be a deal, that the UK should be able to leave the European Union in an orderly fashion. That’s in Ireland’s interest, it’s in Britain’s interest too. But there are certain guarantees that we expect to be honoured; that there won’t be a hard border between North and South.... that North-South cooperation will continue as envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement, that what was given to us by the British government back in December 2017.
The prime minister met with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at the UN General Assembly today. They discussed the Brexit talks and the ideas that the UK has been putting forward, including on the issue of consent. The prime minister was clear that the UK would be leaving on 31 October and said that he was cautiously optimistic that we would be able to do so through negotiating a deal which is acceptable to both sides. The prime minister underlined his steadfast commitment to the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and said that we will never place infrastructure, checks or controls at the border. They agreed on the vital importance of ensuring the peace, prosperity and security of Northern Ireland. The leaders agreed to stay in close contact in coming days.
BarryD2 wrote: » J Mysterio wrote: » People have many legitimate criticisms of Corbyn and they are right to air them. He has failed as an opposition leader during the worst UK crisis since WWII, letting the Tories away with absolute murder. He failed in the referendum to provide clarity. His party is still split and he is doing his best to avoid stating a clear opinion. I hold him in contempt. +1. In truth, Corbyn plays much the same game as May did - trying to be all things to all people, thus falling on their arses between the stools. Not a fan of Boris but at least in his favour is that he offers one definite objective. Not in favour of that objective but it's hard to see how it can be derailed when the main opposition party vacillates so much.
BarryD2 wrote: » +1. In truth, Corbyn plays much the same game as May did - trying to be all things to all people, thus falling on their arses between the stools. Not a fan of Boris but at least in his favour is that he offers one definite objective. Not in favour of that objective but it's hard to see how it can be derailed when the main opposition party vacillates so much.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » The FPTP system has to be the most undemocratic voting system ever. Leaving aside the fact that PR was rejected some years ago it is unreal, especially in a SAFE seat, where as long as the rosette is the right colour, in you go. Why would you bother engaging in politics at all? No reason, no reward. I am of the opinion, rightly or wrongly that the voting system and safe seats has led to an hiatus in political engagement now. Why bother engaging if the local MP will romp home anyway even if you dislike him/her intensely and vote for someone else?. What is the point? Sooner or later this issue will have to be tackled. But it would be like the ubiquitous turkeys and Christmas epithet. Lib Dems on PR would gain a lot of seats I think. But that is just a dream anyway, so scratch that. The will of the people my eye.
Enzokk wrote: » Its her style and what got her the job. She cultivates sources from both sides and then plays them against each other without taking a view. Now this can work if she stays 100% impartial, but I have my doubts about her being impartial. You can guess as well her sources within Labour will not be as good as the Tories so from a work point of view she would prefer a Tory government as well
briany wrote: » I have noticed a staggering correlation - parties who'd stand to win seats through PR are in favour of PR. Parties who stand to lose seats are against.
Tell me how wrote: » It's part of a much broader topic. We have PV in Ireland but also claims of voter apathy, disinterest and non-participation. In the US, the electoral college is said to be undemocratic too but there are also valid reasons for it being used. The FPTP does seem particularly weak over the last number of years though, that much is true.
GM228 wrote: » Sky News just saying Johnson has spoken with the Queen, wonder how that one went? Perhaps he has asked for a new prorogation.
Bambi wrote: » Apparently leaking the AG's advice has serious consequences if you're a minister, resignation
Enzokk wrote: » Its her style and what got her the job. She cultivates sources from both sides and then plays them against each other without taking a view. Now this can work if she stays 100% impartial, but I have my doubts about her being impartial. You can guess as well her sources within Labour will not be as good as the Tories so from a work point of view she would prefer a Tory government as well.https://twitter.com/dimasciov/status/1174394692693299200?s=20
