Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Compel wrote:
Charles would then be next, however there is a not-insubstantial movement that Charles should immediately then abdicate and allow William and Kate to rule.

Which would be fething disastrous and the final nail in the coffin for the British Monarchy. A Monarchy is not and should not be a Big Brother popularity contest. We're not the planet of Naboo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

Side note on the terminology, the USA might have to figure out what to call the husband of a President in a few months, as their President having a husband has never happened before. It'll be especially confusing because in this particular case, that husband will have been a former President himself.

Should be fun times.

Its pretty simple surely? A wife is a "First Lady". A husband would therefore be a "First Gentleman"?

Granted, the First Gentleman being a former President himself complicates matters. First Gentleman President Clinton?

I'm partial to "First Dude". That'd be cool.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Its pretty simple surely? A wife is a "First Lady". A husband would therefore be a "First Gentleman"?

Granted, the First Gentleman being a former President himself complicates matters. First Gentleman President Clinton?

Does make it sound like all the previous presidents were uncouth rogues when you put it like that

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Its pretty simple surely? A wife is a "First Lady". A husband would therefore be a "First Gentleman"?

Granted, the First Gentleman being a former President himself complicates matters. First Gentleman President Clinton?

Does make it sound like all the previous presidents were uncouth rogues when you put it like that

You're saying they weren't?

However...the irony of calling Bill "Monica Lewinsky" Clinton a "gentleman" has just struck me.

 Ketara wrote:


I just feel it's a really bad system for stability and continuity and good solid governance, y'know?

Stability like the '08 crash, or an EU referendum called by a party leader motivated not by democracy but by the desire to shut down dissenters in his own ranks? Continuity like the previous, less public Blair v Brown civil war, or like the present vacillating incoherence from the Tories who can't even agree what the bloody Foreign Secretary's job is supposed to be? Good solid governance like de-industrialisation, right-to-buy, bank deregulation, flogging our gold reserves for a fraction of their value a couple of years later, the Iraq War, arming Syrian rebels who were Al Quada six months ago but are cool-beans now because they've "de-affiliated", Work Capability Assessments, NHS privatisation, etc etc etc etc?

We've had decades of "good solid governance", and it's been a gakshow.

As for how it relates to Labour specifically, if they're not capable of making a more democratic system work, that's their failing nobody else's. Local SNP branches practice mandatory reselection as a matter of course, broad policy decisions are ratified at the party conference, and they took a huge influx of new members as an opportunity, valuing the new ideas, new candidates, and new activists they gained, using those activists and their fees to deliver their 2015 General Election result(huge swings in "safe" seats, and an increase in young and C2DE voter turnout). EDIT: By way of example; the Deputy Leadership is currently up for grabs, and the lead condenders are Angus Robertson the WM leader who's been about for years and is playing as the "safe hands" candidate, Alyn Smith MEP who's obviously playing up the Europe issue, and Tommy Sheppard who's a former Labour man who only came to the SNP as a result of the referendum campaign but is now an MP and is pitching a green/left/even more democritisation of the party prospectus. So, two old hands and an "entryist"(the fourth gent is a local councillor, decent enough, but not setting the world aflame), and so far no sign of animosity or power struggles or press briefings or senior party officials ranting about "Trotsky" conspiracy theories. The problem with the PLP is the PLP.

Labour aren't afraid to democratise the running of the party because it's unstable, or bad governance, they're afraid to do it because the PLP don't represent the interests of the "core" voters that prop them up in their safe seats and they don't want to start.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


I just feel it's a really bad system for stability and continuity and good solid governance, y'know?

Stability like the '08 crash, or an EU referendum called by a party leader motivated not by democracy but by the desire to shut down dissenters in his own ranks? Continuity like the previous, less public Blair v Brown civil war, or like the present vacillating incoherence from the Tories who can't even agree what the bloody Foreign Secretary's job is supposed to be? Good solid governance like de-industrialisation, right-to-buy, bank deregulation, flogging our gold reserves for a fraction of their value a couple of years later, the Iraq War, arming Syrian rebels who were Al Quada six months ago but are cool-beans now because they've "de-affiliated", Work Capability Assessments, NHS privatisation, etc etc etc etc?

We've had decades of "good solid governance", and it's been a gakshow.

I'll be blunt. You're having a rant that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I just said. Blair v Brown has nothing to do with the method of Labour leader selection, and neither does the global market crash. I'm talking about the longterm stability/continuity/good governance of a party. Not a country.

A party can do all sorts of good or horrible things, but that has nothing to do with what level of cohesion or ability to function as an organisation that party has.

As for how it relates to Labour specifically, if they're not capable of making a more democratic system work, that's their failing nobody else's.

And this is flat out wrong.

We could make it so everyone in the country got to vote on every sentence the Prime Minister gets to say in PM questions. We could have the nation vote on what visiting diplomats get served to eat on formal dinners. It would be extremely democratic. It would also be bloody stupid. This is an extreme example, but it should illustrate the point, that more democracy is not inherently a good thing in 100% of scenarios regardless, and a system is not automatically made better, easier, or more practical purely by making it more democratic.

The problem with the PLP is the PLP.

The problem with the Labour party is complex, manifold, and cannot be so easily reduced.

Labour aren't afraid to democratise the running of the party because it's unstable, or bad governance, they're afraid to do it because the PLP don't represent the interests of the "core" voters that prop them up in their safe seats and they don't want to start.

Not quite. I think they view it as unstable, because it's resulted in the instability of the current situation. Had Miliband not changed their process, they wouldn't be in this position. Whether it needed to happen, whether the rot was already there, regardless of all the other factors, the single irreducible fact here is that without that change in election procedure, the Labour Party would not have cracked open in the way it has and be suffering the instability it currently is.

And if they can't change it back, it could happen again. What if in ten years, the flood of BB style voters decide Corbyn's successor should be a popular defected Tory? Or a celebrity? Or someone who thinks the NHS should be privatised? It reduces the rest of the Labour Party (and by extension, their political position) to being at the whim of people with no stake in the Labour Party, which frankly, terrifies them. And so it should. That's why they're desperate to change it back, it renders them impotent and ineffective.

If you think the PLP is the problem, it may be worthwhile to consider that it only exists because its members managed to convince the Labour Party membership to select and support them as candidates, and they further managed to convince enough ordinary people to vote for them to actually get elected.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Its pretty simple surely? A wife is a "First Lady". A husband would therefore be a "First Gentleman"?

Granted, the First Gentleman being a former President himself complicates matters. First Gentleman President Clinton?

Does make it sound like all the previous presidents were uncouth rogues when you put it like that

You're saying they weren't?

However...the irony of calling Bill "Monica Lewinsky" Clinton a "gentleman" has just struck me.

Go for it. This is the best kind of irony

On the Corbyn Bb-style election, it wasn't just the disenfranchised he struck a chord with that swelled voting numbers. I know of plenty of Conservative supporters who signed up to vote, and voted for Corbyn as being likely to cause the most disruption to the labour party. One guy in particular still maintains it was the best three quid he's ever spent.

Like Ketara said, it's so cheap that it's like phone-in voting for a reality TV popularity contest.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like Ketara said, it's so cheap that it's like phone-in voting for a reality TV popularity contest.

Making it expensive doesn't really jive with their supposed voter base.

I have seen plenty of comments on social media of people who signed up complaining they couldn't now vote because £25 is the difference between them eating for a couple of weeks or not.

 Baragash wrote:
[

I have seen plenty of comments on social media of people who signed up complaining they couldn't now vote because £25 is the difference between them eating for a couple of weeks or not.

A couple of weeks?! What are they eating, wallpaper paste?

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
[

I have seen plenty of comments on social media of people who signed up complaining they couldn't now vote because £25 is the difference between them eating for a couple of weeks or not.

A couple of weeks?! What are they eating, wallpaper paste?

Maybe! There are people who live and work in London that buy "industrial" bags of porridge oats for ~£5 that will feed them 3 meals a day for over a week, and they do that every month for the last week of the month. And these are young professionals we're talking about, so I can easily imagine people much further down the....food chain....doing something similar.

I used to work in an office next to an Eat outlet, every night when I left the office there would be people raiding the bags for all the leftovers from the day (as most of what is sold is fresh that day). We're not talking about tramps and such, just people on low pay that the city needs to function (a lot of them looked like couriers and bike messengers actually).

Meanwhile, whilst everybody is being distracted by the Olympics and comedy hour at the Labour party, the Sunday Times is saying that the Tories have no idea when article 50 will be invoked, no strategy, and barely a negotiating team worthy of the name...

Leaked reports also say that Fox and Bojo are at loggerheads...Fox wants economic diplomacy to be part of his brief, but Bojo won't relinquish the power or the staff from the FO...

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, but what a shambles...

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


I just feel it's a really bad system for stability and continuity and good solid governance, y'know?

Stability like the '08 crash, or an EU referendum called by a party leader motivated not by democracy but by the desire to shut down dissenters in his own ranks? Continuity like the previous, less public Blair v Brown civil war, or like the present vacillating incoherence from the Tories who can't even agree what the bloody Foreign Secretary's job is supposed to be? Good solid governance like de-industrialisation, right-to-buy, bank deregulation, flogging our gold reserves for a fraction of their value a couple of years later, the Iraq War, arming Syrian rebels who were Al Quada six months ago but are cool-beans now because they've "de-affiliated", Work Capability Assessments, NHS privatisation, etc etc etc etc?

We've had decades of "good solid governance", and it's been a gakshow.

I'll be blunt. You're having a rant that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I just said. Blair v Brown has nothing to do with the method of Labour leader selection, and neither does the global market crash. I'm talking about the longterm stability/continuity/good governance of a party. Not a country.

A party can do all sorts of good or horrible things, but that has nothing to do with what level of cohesion or ability to function as an organisation that party has.

As for how it relates to Labour specifically, if they're not capable of making a more democratic system work, that's their failing nobody else's.

And this is flat out wrong.

We could make it so everyone in the country got to vote on every sentence the Prime Minister gets to say in PM questions. We could have the nation vote on what visiting diplomats get served to eat on formal dinners. It would be extremely democratic. It would also be bloody stupid. This is an extreme example, but it should illustrate the point, that more democracy is not inherently a good thing in 100% of scenarios regardless, and a system is not automatically made better, easier, or more practical purely by making it more democratic.

The problem with the PLP is the PLP.

The problem with the Labour party is complex, manifold, and cannot be so easily reduced.

Labour aren't afraid to democratise the running of the party because it's unstable, or bad governance, they're afraid to do it because the PLP don't represent the interests of the "core" voters that prop them up in their safe seats and they don't want to start.

Not quite. I think they view it as unstable, because it's resulted in the instability of the current situation. Had Miliband not changed their process, they wouldn't be in this position. Whether it needed to happen, whether the rot was already there, regardless of all the other factors, the single irreducible fact here is that without that change in election procedure, the Labour Party would not have cracked open in the way it has and be suffering the instability it currently is.

And if they can't change it back, it could happen again. What if in ten years, the flood of BB style voters decide Corbyn's successor should be a popular defected Tory? Or a celebrity? Or someone who thinks the NHS should be privatised? It reduces the rest of the Labour Party (and by extension, their political position) to being at the whim of people with no stake in the Labour Party, which frankly, terrifies them. And so it should. That's why they're desperate to change it back, it renders them impotent and ineffective.

And yet, the specific examples you excised from your quotes would seem to indicate the problem is not some insurmountable universal absolute. My initial comment, by the by, was more meant in the same vein as your comment above on democracy, ie to illustrate that in and of itself "good governance" and "stablity" etc are not universally good things, when you take those to extremes you get stagnation and excuses for cronyism, or to be specific again a Labour party that's lost the respect and alleigance of its traditional core vote and sees any attempt to move away from the current PLP orthodoxy of centrist tabloid appeasement as an existential threat.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you think the PLP is the problem, it may be worthwhile to consider that it only exists because its members managed to convince the Labour Party membership to select and support them as candidates, and they further managed to convince enough ordinary people to vote for them to actually get elected.

Really? Because when I consider the PLP I see a group that contains more than a few careerists parachuted into "safe" seats with shonky selection methods, giving them a built-in majority that's unlikely to be overturned in a FPTP system short of a major, generational political shift. "It's me or the Tories, take your pick" in a seat filled with people who the Tories have been relentlessly shafting for decades hardly demands high quality candidates, you should have seen the state of some of the cretinous floaters up here that finally got flushed away in the 2015 SNP landslide, most of them hadn't faced the prospect of reselection for over a decade, if ever.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like Ketara said, it's so cheap that it's like phone-in voting for a reality TV popularity contest.

Oh aye, heaven forfend a political party that ostensibly represents the interests of the worker, the poor, and the oppressed make joining affordable enough that those people can actually have a say in its running. By god, some of the uppity pleboids might get the idea they're capable of becoming candidates, then what would we do fnafafafafafafa!?!

If you guys turn your noses up any higher you're going to scalp yourselves.

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
[

I have seen plenty of comments on social media of people who signed up complaining they couldn't now vote because £25 is the difference between them eating for a couple of weeks or not.

A couple of weeks?! What are they eating, wallpaper paste?

Welcome to Britain in 2016, where we expect people with disabilities or no job to live on £70 a week, pensioners have to choose between eating and staying warn in winter, and some jobs pay so poorly that parents have to go without food so their kids don't.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Meanwhile, whilst everybody is being distracted by the Olympics and comedy hour at the Labour party, the Sunday Times is saying that the Tories have no idea when article 50 will be invoked, no strategy, and barely a negotiating team worthy of the name...

Leaked reports also say that Fox and Bojo are at loggerheads...Fox wants economic diplomacy to be part of his brief, but Bojo won't relinquish the power or the staff from the FO...

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, but what a shambles...

If only it could have been predicted that forming two ministries with such a large overlap of duties could have been problematic when it came to them actually functioning

Eh, ministers in a spat over MAH AUTHORI-TAY is something eternal across all governments. Upto May to knock heads together and tell em to get on with it.

Would seem to be part of Fox brief imo.

And I see no need to rush article 50, only moon-howlers like Farage or Corbyn wanted to push the button straight away.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Meanwhile, whilst everybody is being distracted by the Olympics and comedy hour at the Labour party, the Sunday Times is saying that the Tories have no idea when article 50 will be invoked, no strategy, and barely a negotiating team worthy of the name...

Leaked reports also say that Fox and Bojo are at loggerheads...Fox wants economic diplomacy to be part of his brief, but Bojo won't relinquish the power or the staff from the FO...

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, but what a shambles...

If only it could have been predicted that forming two ministries with such a large overlap of duties could have been problematic when it came to them actually functioning

Three. Dave Davis is Minister of Brexit remember.

The only thing left for the true Tory Euro sceptic is to shout about when Article 50 should be invoked.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The only thing left for the true Tory Euro sceptic is to shout about when Article 50 should be invoked.

IMO, euro-sceptic as a term, is the biggest load of codswallop that British politics has seen for decades. You're either for the EU or against it. Euro-sceptic is a mealy mouthed cop out in my book. I hate that term, as you've probably guessed

But to address your point, May will have to do something about article 50 sooner or later, or the Tory backbenchers will claim another PM...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pistols at Dawn wrote:
Eh, ministers in a spat over MAH AUTHORI-TAY is something eternal across all governments. Upto May to knock heads together and tell em to get on with it.

Would seem to be part of Fox brief imo.

And I see no need to rush article 50, only moon-howlers like Farage or Corbyn wanted to push the button straight away.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Meanwhile, whilst everybody is being distracted by the Olympics and comedy hour at the Labour party, the Sunday Times is saying that the Tories have no idea when article 50 will be invoked, no strategy, and barely a negotiating team worthy of the name...

Leaked reports also say that Fox and Bojo are at loggerheads...Fox wants economic diplomacy to be part of his brief, but Bojo won't relinquish the power or the staff from the FO...

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, but what a shambles...

If only it could have been predicted that forming two ministries with such a large overlap of duties could have been problematic when it came to them actually functioning

Three. Dave Davis is Minister of Brexit remember.

For your information, I've also been calling for the article 50 button to be pushed ASAP.

The longer the delay, the more it seems the British public is getting stitched up...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Meanwhile, whilst everybody is being distracted by the Olympics and comedy hour at the Labour party, the Sunday Times is saying that the Tories have no idea when article 50 will be invoked, no strategy, and barely a negotiating team worthy of the name...

Leaked reports also say that Fox and Bojo are at loggerheads...Fox wants economic diplomacy to be part of his brief, but Bojo won't relinquish the power or the staff from the FO...

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, but what a shambles...

If only it could have been predicted that forming two ministries with such a large overlap of duties could have been problematic when it came to them actually functioning

I've always been a critic of Fox, considering him to be borderline corrupt, but he seems far more effective than Bojo. It would have been easier to appoint Bojo minister for paperclips, and let Fox and Davis do the proper work, which they'll probably end up doing anyway...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And despite Ketara's skepticism, I remain utterly convinced that the dark hand of Alistair Campbell is at the back of some of Labour's recent woes...

His paw prints are all over the plotters and their 'strategy.'

I bring this up because I seen him on the news today talking about Labour's woes...

He's pulling the strings, mark my words...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have no proof, links, or evidence of Campbell's involvement, but politics has been a hobby of mine for a number of years, and your gut instinct is sometimes enough to get you through...

True, it won't impress a judge in a court of law, but I'm dealing with the court of public opinion here...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For your information, I've also been calling for the article 50 button to be pushed ASAP.

The longer the delay, the more it seems the British public is getting stitched up...

Moon-howler! I kid! I kid!

I don't see why we shouldn't take our time, only get one chance to do this.

May seems to be hinting at 6 months-ish, which seems about right.

But the term 'Euro Sceptic' has so many positive connotations....

The EU is not Marmite.

It's possible to be sceptical about aspects of the EU and want to reform or change them and keep the good bits without actually thinking all of it is the Devil's work.

Let's face it, the Brexiteers actually are trying to do that. They want as much as possible of the benefits of membership with some of the obligations and responsibilities taken away.

hope to us all indeed.

 Yodhrin wrote:

And yet, the specific examples you excised from your quotes would seem to indicate the problem is not some insurmountable universal absolute. My initial comment, by the by, was more meant in the same vein as your comment above on democracy, ie to illustrate that in and of itself "good governance" and "stablity" etc are not universally good things, when you take those to extremes you get stagnation and excuses for cronyism, or to be specific again a Labour party that's lost the respect and alleigance of its traditional core vote and sees any attempt to move away from the current PLP orthodoxy of centrist tabloid appeasement as an existential threat.

Sure. Stability and stagnation are the same side of the coin, with instability and rapid change on the other. The ideal (to continue the metaphor) is to try and find a way to balance the coin on the edge. It would appear that this modification in the Labour Party rules simply flipped our coin. That's why I'm torn on it. It's different, and better in some regards, yet worse in others.

Really? Because when I consider the PLP I see a group that contains more than a few careerists parachuted into "safe" seats with shonky selection methods, giving them a built-in majority that's unlikely to be overturned in a FPTP system short of a major, generational political shift. "It's me or the Tories, take your pick" in a seat filled with people who the Tories have been relentlessly shafting for decades hardly demands high quality candidates, you should have seen the state of some of the cretinous floaters up here that finally got flushed away in the 2015 SNP landslide, most of them hadn't faced the prospect of reselection for over a decade, if ever.

Sure. But there are also plenty of MP's who do try and work for their constituents. Of late though, anyone who questions Corbyn (the man who's spent thirty years refusing to do as he was told) is viewed as a traitor to the cause and threatened, whether they're a good MP or a careerist. Remember, 180 MP's voted to be shot of him, careerists and good MP's alike.

I find the shift disturbing. And you know, I actually am not convinced it comes so much from Corbyn? Whenever I read interviews, or accounts by people who were in his office (and are no longer), the impression I get is of a man who frankly, has his head in the sand. One who doesn't want to personally 'enforce' his will, because he's aware that he's spent thirty year evading such demands by leaders and knows it would be vastly hypocritical. But also one who is willing to turn a blind eye when other people do it on his behalf, and even reward them with promotion and position

And so you have to ask yourself who it is that's organising the less than salubrious aspect to his leadership campaign. Watson and many others say there's a bunch of old-school Trotskyites behind it, and I'm inclined to believe them. The proof? Firstly, Watson is no Blairite, he supported Corbyn at first, and willingly so I think until the vote of no confidence. Secondly, McCluskey, a self-declared Trotskyite is the main Union leader backing Corbyn. Thirdly, there's evidence of a number of Momentum campaigners with hard-left backgrounds being promoted within the Labour Party right now to work in Corbyn's office.

Oh aye, heaven forfend a political party that ostensibly represents the interests of the worker, the poor, and the oppressed make joining affordable enough that those people can actually have a say in its running. By god, some of the uppity pleboids might get the idea they're capable of becoming candidates, then what would we do fnafafafafafafa!?!

If you guys turn your noses up any higher you're going to scalp yourselves.

That sounds like the sort of thing a Tory facist class oppressor would say to try and persuade workers into supporting self-harming political actions!

Or, you know, we could discuss this like reasonable adults, instead of resorting to disingenuous misrepresentation. I'm working class stock (first in my family to get a successful traditional education), the people who drafted the original rules for membership and structure of the Labour party were working class. My great grandparents were Durham miners who scrimped and saved and suffered to help kick-start and hold up the Labour Party. Compared to them, £25 today is chump change unless you're literally homeless (I've been on the dole).

Whilst that's not to say we should go back to those days, £25 is enough money to make you think twice about wasting it, but not so much a person can't raise it in need. There's also several Union based organisations which being a member of decreases the Labour Party membership fee substantially. I think it's slightly on the high side, £15-£20 would have been better, but the £3 text vote equivalent is ridiculous. So much so that they're having to literally weed Tories out by sifting new joiners on social media, and they've found thousands.

Asking that members have a real stake or belief in the principles of that party is not, I think, too absurd.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU is not Marmite.

It's possible to be sceptical about aspects of the EU and want to reform or change them and keep the good bits without actually thinking all of it is the Devil's work.

Let's face it, the Brexiteers actually are trying to do that. They want as much as possible of the benefits of membership with some of the obligations and responsibilities taken away.

Not this Brexiteer.

Yes, I still want to trade with Europe, and co-operate with them on things like NATO, but out means out in my book. I want a clean break, none of this half-way house approach for me...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
But the term 'Euro Sceptic' has so many positive connotations....

For Alan Partridge maybe

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU is not Marmite.

It's possible to be sceptical about aspects of the EU and want to reform or change them and keep the good bits without actually thinking all of it is the Devil's work.

Let's face it, the Brexiteers actually are trying to do that. They want as much as possible of the benefits of membership with some of the obligations and responsibilities taken away.

Not this Brexiteer.

Yes, I still want to trade with Europe, and co-operate with them on things like NATO, but out means out in my book. I want a clean break, none of this half-way house approach for me...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
But the term 'Euro Sceptic' has so many positive connotations....

For Alan Partridge maybe

You don't want a trade agreement with the EU?

I do want a trade deal with the EU that is similar to what Japan, or Australia, or any other non-EU, non -European country has...

What I don't want is some wishy washy compromise deal, which makes us EU members in all but name...

I'm dead against that...

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/765524933132816385


..they're all at it !

Is it me or is there a conspicuous absence of a report on the BBC site about the Constituency Labour Party support?

Oh, yes there is, they buried it at the bottom of the article about bus service reforms.

 Baragash wrote:
Is it me or is there a conspicuous absence of a report on the BBC site about the Constituency Labour Party support?

Oh, yes there is, they buried it at the bottom of the article about bus service reforms.

It's not just you, and if you search the media for updates about the Tory election scandal from 2015, the silence is also deafening...

The media in this country is way to close to the politicians...

As a rule of thumb, if I want critical analysis of Russia and Putin, Western media is the place to go.

If I want to find out about stuff the BBC and other British newspapers are not keen on i.e stuff they'd rather the British public didn't know,

then Russia today and Al Jazeera are pretty good.

If you want to be informed, watch and read multiple news sources - that's my advice.