Predictable attacks from various Tories and the Lib Dems on what he said about our implementation of foreign policy and the later effects of this. Despite our security services also cautioning this might happen before we went into Iraq and I think as part of the enquiry into it afterwards.
Attempts to suggest he condones terrorism or that what he said today was an attempt to justify the attack are utterly lamentable.
Here's what Teresa May said in a speech a few months ago, "...This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over."
Is that so different to what Corbyn has said today?
Is this the same St Jeremy that took fees from the state run Iran broadcaster to appear on their TV channel? The same channel that broadcast the torture of a journalist during the period that St Jezza was taking their money? The same one that voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985? The one who said in so doing: "Does the Hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given [i.e. Unionist]? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the twenty-six counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason." Corbyn was an advocate of the political wing of the IRA not a peacemaker. Is this the same Jeremy that was General Secretary of the editorial board of Labour Briefing which supported the IRA and which explicitly backed the bombing of the hotel in Brighton? In its December 1984 leader, the editorial board (that would include Corbyn) ‘disassociated itself’ from an article criticising the Brighton bombing, saying the criticism was a ‘serious political misjudgement’. The board said it ‘reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement’, and added that ‘the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it’. Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a ‘blow for democracy’. The same edition carried a reader’s letter praising the ‘audacity’ of the IRA attack and stating: ‘What do you call four dead Tories? A start.’ There are almost countless other examples of Corbyn's overall nastiness and stupidity. I've harvested the above from overtly left-wing publications, BTW, not the nasty Tory press. Corbyn and his acolytes are really very unpleasant people indeed who have tried to airbrush Jeremy's more bonkers ventures from history. Here's a really deeply offensive quote from his left-hand man Johnny boy: " It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process." (This is the same IRA that killed 1696 men , women and children.)
Meanwhile a look at Corbyn's voting record, can be confusing. On the one hand there is a perhaps expected consistency on certain issues. For example he has consistently voted against allowing national security sensitive evidence from being given in secret sessions in Court. (Which would often mean a guilty individual walking free because the security services would pull the evidence to protect sources.)
But there are some strange inconsistencies. For example, he has generally voted against lower fuel taxes for vehicles but against higher taxes for airplane tickets. When Labour was in power, he consistently voted against their anti-terrorist legislation. On five occasions he voted against a limit on lawyers fees on no-win-no-fee cases. On 25 June 2013, he voted for a statutory register for parliamentary lobbyists. But just three months later, he voted against that! On eight occasions he has voted against there being an equal number of electors in constituencies. He also doesn't like the idea of there being a cut in the number of MPs. He has consistently voted against reducing central government grants to local councils but also consistently voted against allowing local councils to keep money raised on business taxes! On one occasion (yes really) he voted to reduce corporation tax. But 21 times the other way. (Perhaps he stumbled through the wrong lobby?) He has voted seven times for and seven times against tax incentives for companies to invest in assets. On three occasions he voted against encouraging occupational pension schemes. (I guess he thinks the state can pay?)
Now, and this might give food for thought on the Labour promise to only tax the rich a little bit more. On 22 occasions Corbyn has voted against increasing the threshold at which people begin to pay tax.
Now, I'm no fan of May either but this new heavily photo-shopped all blemishes removed Jeremy does leave a rather horrible taste in the mouth if you delve just a little bit into this obnoxious individual's past.
Regrettably, I fear you are dead right. I'm still going to vote for Clive Efford, and I think the Labour manifesto makes a lot of good proposals. But...
Now imagine if the manifesto, and even the substance of today's speech had been given by Alan Johnson or David Milliband...
Regrettably, I fear you are dead right. I'm still going to vote for Clive Efford, and I think the Labour manifesto makes a lot of good proposals. But...
Now imagine if the manifesto, and even the substance of today's speech had been given by Alan Johnson or David Milliband...
And there lies the problem it wasn't given by either of them. As much as corbyn talks sense he is at the end of the day corbyn. I just can't see enough people voting for him whatever he may say
Predictable attacks from various Tories and the Lib Dems on what he said about our implementation of foreign policy and the later effects of this. Despite our security services also cautioning this might happen before we went into Iraq and I think as part of the enquiry into it afterwards.
Attempts to suggest he condones terrorism or that what he said today was an attempt to justify the attack are utterly lamentable.
Here's what Teresa May said in a speech a few months ago, "...This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over."
Is that so different to what Corbyn has said today?
Is this the same St Jeremy that took fees from the state run Iran broadcaster to appear on their TV channel? The same channel that broadcast the torture of a journalist during the period that St Jezza was taking their money? The same one that voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985? The one who said in so doing: "Does the Hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given [i.e. Unionist]? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the twenty-six counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason." Corbyn was an advocate of the political wing of the IRA not a peacemaker. Is this the same Jeremy that was General Secretary of the editorial board of Labour Briefing which supported the IRA and which explicitly backed the bombing of the hotel in Brighton? In its December 1984 leader, the editorial board (that would include Corbyn) ‘disassociated itself’ from an article criticising the Brighton bombing, saying the criticism was a ‘serious political misjudgement’. The board said it ‘reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement’, and added that ‘the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it’. Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a ‘blow for democracy’. The same edition carried a reader’s letter praising the ‘audacity’ of the IRA attack and stating: ‘What do you call four dead Tories? A start.’ There are almost countless other examples of Corbyn's overall nastiness and stupidity. I've harvested the above from overtly left-wing publications, BTW, not the nasty Tory press. Corbyn and his acolytes are really very unpleasant people indeed who have tried to airbrush Jeremy's more bonkers ventures from history. Here's a really deeply offensive quote from his left-hand man Johnny boy: " It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process." (This is the same IRA that killed 1696 men , women and children.)
Meanwhile a look at Corbyn's voting record, can be confusing. On the one hand there is a perhaps expected consistency on certain issues. For example he has consistently voted against allowing national security sensitive evidence from being given in secret sessions in Court. (Which would often mean a guilty individual walking free because the security services would pull the evidence to protect sources.)
But there are some strange inconsistencies. For example, he has generally voted against lower fuel taxes for vehicles but against higher taxes for airplane tickets. When Labour was in power, he consistently voted against their anti-terrorist legislation. On five occasions he voted against a limit on lawyers fees on no-win-no-fee cases. On 25 June 2013, he voted for a statutory register for parliamentary lobbyists. But just three months later, he voted against that! On eight occasions he has voted against there being an equal number of electors in constituencies. He also doesn't like the idea of there being a cut in the number of MPs. He has consistently voted against reducing central government grants to local councils but also consistently voted against allowing local councils to keep money raised on business taxes! On one occasion (yes really) he voted to reduce corporation tax. But 21 times the other way. (Perhaps he stumbled through the wrong lobby?) He has voted seven times for and seven times against tax incentives for companies to invest in assets. On three occasions he voted against encouraging occupational pension schemes. (I guess he thinks the state can pay?)
Now, and this might give food for thought on the Labour promise to only tax the rich a little bit more. On 22 occasions Corbyn has voted against increasing the threshold at which people begin to pay tax.
Now, I'm no fan of May either but this new heavily photo-shopped all blemishes removed Jeremy does leave a rather horrible taste in the mouth if you delve just a little bit into this obnoxious individual's past.
CAFCfan - could it be that Corbyn opposes any solution that involves the Brits maintaining political control of part of a country that they invaded several centuries ago in circumstances that today might be described as genocide? Ironically Brexit may lead to re-unification.
Far too many MPs support other party's political agenda. Not to say they don't support the premis, just the wording of the bill. Do you think a Corbyn Brexit bill would have no hard or soft option, and a straight 50% majority? He has accepted the vote but a Labour referendum would have been far different.
Predictable attacks from various Tories and the Lib Dems on what he said about our implementation of foreign policy and the later effects of this. Despite our security services also cautioning this might happen before we went into Iraq and I think as part of the enquiry into it afterwards.
Attempts to suggest he condones terrorism or that what he said today was an attempt to justify the attack are utterly lamentable.
Here's what Teresa May said in a speech a few months ago, "...This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over."
Is that so different to what Corbyn has said today?
Is this the same St Jeremy that took fees from the state run Iran broadcaster to appear on their TV channel? The same channel that broadcast the torture of a journalist during the period that St Jezza was taking their money? The same one that voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985? The one who said in so doing: "Does the Hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given [i.e. Unionist]? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the twenty-six counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason." Corbyn was an advocate of the political wing of the IRA not a peacemaker. Is this the same Jeremy that was General Secretary of the editorial board of Labour Briefing which supported the IRA and which explicitly backed the bombing of the hotel in Brighton? In its December 1984 leader, the editorial board (that would include Corbyn) ‘disassociated itself’ from an article criticising the Brighton bombing, saying the criticism was a ‘serious political misjudgement’. The board said it ‘reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement’, and added that ‘the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it’. Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a ‘blow for democracy’. The same edition carried a reader’s letter praising the ‘audacity’ of the IRA attack and stating: ‘What do you call four dead Tories? A start.’ There are almost countless other examples of Corbyn's overall nastiness and stupidity. I've harvested the above from overtly left-wing publications, BTW, not the nasty Tory press. Corbyn and his acolytes are really very unpleasant people indeed who have tried to airbrush Jeremy's more bonkers ventures from history. Here's a really deeply offensive quote from his left-hand man Johnny boy: " It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process." (This is the same IRA that killed 1696 men , women and children.)
Meanwhile a look at Corbyn's voting record, can be confusing. On the one hand there is a perhaps expected consistency on certain issues. For example he has consistently voted against allowing national security sensitive evidence from being given in secret sessions in Court. (Which would often mean a guilty individual walking free because the security services would pull the evidence to protect sources.)
But there are some strange inconsistencies. For example, he has generally voted against lower fuel taxes for vehicles but against higher taxes for airplane tickets. When Labour was in power, he consistently voted against their anti-terrorist legislation. On five occasions he voted against a limit on lawyers fees on no-win-no-fee cases. On 25 June 2013, he voted for a statutory register for parliamentary lobbyists. But just three months later, he voted against that! On eight occasions he has voted against there being an equal number of electors in constituencies. He also doesn't like the idea of there being a cut in the number of MPs. He has consistently voted against reducing central government grants to local councils but also consistently voted against allowing local councils to keep money raised on business taxes! On one occasion (yes really) he voted to reduce corporation tax. But 21 times the other way. (Perhaps he stumbled through the wrong lobby?) He has voted seven times for and seven times against tax incentives for companies to invest in assets. On three occasions he voted against encouraging occupational pension schemes. (I guess he thinks the state can pay?)
Now, and this might give food for thought on the Labour promise to only tax the rich a little bit more. On 22 occasions Corbyn has voted against increasing the threshold at which people begin to pay tax.
Now, I'm no fan of May either but this new heavily photo-shopped all blemishes removed Jeremy does leave a rather horrible taste in the mouth if you delve just a little bit into this obnoxious individual's past.
So it's not just the right wing press that writes bollocks about him. He's denied he was ever a member, just a contributor, not that you can attribute the views of someone else's letter to him:
Equally voting records mean nothing without examining the laws and the reasons. Many times you see MPs vote against a bad law where they agree with the principle.
Neal dealt Corbyn some hefty blows during his Sky interview, after all there is a lot of ammunition! But I thought Corbyn weathered the storm pretty well with his 'man of peace' mantra. A pity really that the interview was so negative and almost entirely based on Trident/IRA/nuclear power/Nato etc. maybe the toughest attack was for Corbyn to explain why his own MP's will not want him as leader/PM! Nevertheless I thought Corbyn answered the questions considerably better than Theresa May last week. She was embarrassing. Corbyn came over as principled but vulnerable.
Neal dealt Corbyn some hefty blows during his Sky interview, after all there is a lot of ammunition! But I thought Corbyn weathered the storm pretty well with his 'man of peace' mantra. A pity really that the interview was so negative and almost entirely based on Trident/IRA/nuclear power/Nato etc. maybe the toughest attack was for Corbyn to explain why his own MP's will not want him as leader/PM! Nevertheless I thought Corbyn answered the questions considerably better than Theresa May last week. She was embarrassing. Corbyn came over as principled but vulnerable.
Can see some ammo coming back from Labour in next few days. Corbyn went against my instincts. How will you pay for your spending plans Jeremy? I'd have said "well I won't borrow more than the combined total of all British governments in the history of time than this 7 years Tory austerity". Against Neil and the Sky woman he made no criticisms of other parties, no personal attacks, just stated his agenda. No retribution against LP mps outside tent pissing in. Very, very clever but unlikely to be pre-planned.
I'd have made more of issues he disagreed with like £80bn (totally uncosted) Trident which has ceased to defend a security threat but has chosen to tow party line and support the democratic labour vote. Contrast with May who intends to re-introduce Grammars and fox-hunting which has neither public or her party support.
Looking forward to the warmongering righties condemning this the same way they did Diane Abbott for getting it all arse about face ( She's still a pratt too, just for the record).
In the UK, the average "farmer" receives between £18,260 and £23,000 every year from the taxpayer for an average farm of 220-plus acres, whether or not he or she grows or herds anything. There are no current subsidy figures specifically for England and Wales, according to Jack Thurston, a London-based expert on the subsidy regime. "The UK government has refused to supply them," he says.
First, no one knows just how much land is available for development or from whom it is available. The result is that UK homes are both the smallest in Europe and the most expensive, with the land or site costing a vast proportion of the value of the dwelling. From the perspective of the 31 million people, or half the UK population, who pay direct taxes, what we are doing is in effect paying an inefficient business - the 325,000 "farmer" holders, or 0.5 per cent of the population - to keep hold of building land, further falsifying an already rigged market. The finer figures are worse. Only two-thirds of UK farms are owned; the other one-third is rented, mostly from the owners of the other two-thirds. In effect, the agriculture subsidy goes to the 0.36 per cent of the population that owns 70 per cent of the country.
If the 65,000 "farms" of under two acres are subtracted as economically meaningless, what you have is 50 per cent of the population, the taxpayers, paying 0.28 per cent of the population to hold the bulk of the country's landed assets and to make those plentiful assets scarce. The result is that the cost of a building site is two or three times what it should be for 70 per cent of the population. This is Britain's great property swindle.
even his last point against labour wanting to reverse the cuts on emergency services and police makes no sense. He refers to when labour increased the number of police back in 2005 then the London bombings happened. he says that it's not about the numbers of police its the resources you dedicate to anti terrorists intelligent services. Yeah but Michael if we use the same argument that you used against Labour then why did the Manchester bombing happen?
the bloke is a tool.
(I'm in favour of both increases to intelligent services and the emergency services btw)
Jeremy Corbyn is using FA Cup Final day to launch plans to offer football fans a "flexible football ticket" to help more people attend matches. The proposal would mean fans aren't left with unusable tickets after matches are moved or rescheduled.
The Labour leader - who will be at Wembley later to support Arsenal - is also pledging more money for grassroots football if Labour wins power. The Conservatives have called Labour's proposals "nonsensical".
Nonsensical like every good point the opposition makes.
I heard David Davis on Any Questions on the wireless this lunchtime. Apart from trying to suggest Jeremy Corbyn is only one step removed from Osama Bin Laden he avoided Brexit questions ( he is a lead Brexit negotiator) by saying he doesn't want to conduct negotiations in public which is a handy way of saying he wants a blank cheque. My sense is that he is clueless, he said the foreign nationals situation could have been settled ages ago, but he found some weasel excuse. David Davis sometimes is portrayed as some kind of good bloke, but his naked salivating for power, for no end than to have power as heard on the wireless this lunchtime, made him seem like all of the rest of these trough snuffling Tories. I wonder if Cameron would contemplate introducing his member to David Davis' mush.
David Davis is fecking useless. Bet he couldn't believe his luck at getting brought back into the political front line by May. Brexit minister. God help us.
Mainly because Corbyn doesn't seem Prime Ministerial. Yes, May may talk about policies that will make 95% of Britons worse off and will lead to much suffering and death, but at least people believe she will carry this program out. It's evil, but it's well adminsistrated evil.
Who could trust Corbyn? He trusts a woman who sometimes gets her sums wrong and once said something about Swedish nurses. What an idiot.
Mainly because Corbyn doesn't seem Prime Ministerial. Yes, May may talk about policies that will make 95% of Britons worse off and will lead to much suffering and death, but at least people believe she will carry this program out. It's evil, but it's well adminsistrated evil.
Who could trust Corbyn? He trusts a woman who sometimes gets her sums wrong and once said something about Swedish nurses. What an idiot.
Nobody really seams prime minister material until they are prime minister. It looks like I could get my wish for a reduced Tory majority and hopefully a better leader than May to lead us through Brexit will then come form the Tories. But I have started to get greedy and wish for a fresh new approach which will make all our lives better - even the rich. I'm surprised as many as 37% think the Tories have the best policies for them. They promise limited growth and a worse country year on year, apart from the elite few.
Comments
The same one that voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985? The one who said in so doing: "Does the Hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given [i.e. Unionist]? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the twenty-six counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason." Corbyn was an advocate of the political wing of the IRA not a peacemaker. Is this the same Jeremy that was General Secretary of the editorial board of Labour Briefing which supported the IRA and which explicitly backed the bombing of the hotel in Brighton? In its December 1984 leader, the editorial board (that would include Corbyn) ‘disassociated itself’ from an article criticising the Brighton bombing, saying the criticism was a ‘serious political misjudgement’. The board said it ‘reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement’, and added that ‘the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it’. Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a ‘blow for democracy’. The same edition carried a reader’s letter praising the ‘audacity’ of the IRA attack and stating: ‘What do you call four dead Tories? A start.’
There are almost countless other examples of Corbyn's overall nastiness and stupidity. I've harvested the above from overtly left-wing publications, BTW, not the nasty Tory press.
Corbyn and his acolytes are really very unpleasant people indeed who have tried to airbrush Jeremy's more bonkers ventures from history. Here's a really deeply offensive quote from his left-hand man Johnny boy: " It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process." (This is the same IRA that killed 1696 men , women and children.)
Meanwhile a look at Corbyn's voting record, can be confusing. On the one hand there is a perhaps expected consistency on certain issues. For example he has consistently voted against allowing national security sensitive evidence from being given in secret sessions in Court. (Which would often mean a guilty individual walking free because the security services would pull the evidence to protect sources.)
But there are some strange inconsistencies. For example, he has generally voted against lower fuel taxes for vehicles but against higher taxes for airplane tickets. When Labour was in power, he consistently voted against their anti-terrorist legislation.
On five occasions he voted against a limit on lawyers fees on no-win-no-fee cases. On 25 June 2013, he voted for a statutory register for parliamentary lobbyists. But just three months later, he voted against that! On eight occasions he has voted against there being an equal number of electors in constituencies. He also doesn't like the idea of there being a cut in the number of MPs. He has consistently voted against reducing central government grants to local councils but also consistently voted against allowing local councils to keep money raised on business taxes! On one occasion (yes really) he voted to reduce corporation tax. But 21 times the other way. (Perhaps he stumbled through the wrong lobby?) He has voted seven times for and seven times against tax incentives for companies to invest in assets. On three occasions he voted against encouraging occupational pension schemes. (I guess he thinks the state can pay?)
Now, and this might give food for thought on the Labour promise to only tax the rich a little bit more. On 22 occasions Corbyn has voted against increasing the threshold at which people begin to pay tax.
Now, I'm no fan of May either but this new heavily photo-shopped all blemishes removed Jeremy does leave a rather horrible taste in the mouth if you delve just a little bit into this obnoxious individual's past.
Regrettably, I fear you are dead right. I'm still going to vote for Clive Efford, and I think the Labour manifesto makes a lot of good proposals. But...
Now imagine if the manifesto, and even the substance of today's speech had been given by Alan Johnson or David Milliband...
As much as corbyn talks sense he is at the end of the day corbyn.
I just can't see enough people voting for him whatever he may say
Far too many MPs support other party's political agenda. Not to say they don't support the premis, just the wording of the bill. Do you think a Corbyn Brexit bill would have no hard or soft option, and a straight 50% majority? He has accepted the vote but a Labour referendum would have been far different.
https://youtu.be/guY06yv-5qs
Equally voting records mean nothing without examining the laws and the reasons. Many times you see MPs vote against a bad law where they agree with the principle.
I'd have made more of issues he disagreed with like £80bn (totally uncosted) Trident which has ceased to defend a security threat but has chosen to tow party line and support the democratic labour vote. Contrast with May who intends to re-introduce Grammars and fox-hunting which has neither public or her party support.
Tories. The party for those Just About Managing.
In the UK, the average "farmer" receives between £18,260 and £23,000 every year from the taxpayer for an average farm of 220-plus acres, whether or not he or she grows or herds anything. There are no current subsidy figures specifically for England and Wales, according to Jack Thurston, a London-based expert on the subsidy regime. "The UK government has refused to supply them," he says.
First, no one knows just how much land is available for development or from whom it is available. The result is that UK homes are both the smallest in Europe and the most expensive, with the land or site costing a vast proportion of the value of the dwelling. From the perspective of the 31 million people, or half the UK population, who pay direct taxes, what we are doing is in effect paying an inefficient business - the 325,000 "farmer" holders, or 0.5 per cent of the population - to keep hold of building land, further falsifying an already rigged market. The finer figures are worse. Only two-thirds of UK farms are owned; the other one-third is rented, mostly from the owners of the other two-thirds. In effect, the agriculture subsidy goes to the 0.36 per cent of the population that owns 70 per cent of the country.
If the 65,000 "farms" of under two acres are subtracted as economically meaningless, what you have is 50 per cent of the population, the taxpayers, paying 0.28 per cent of the population to hold the bulk of the country's landed assets and to make those plentiful assets scarce. The result is that the cost of a building site is two or three times what it should be for 70 per cent of the population. This is Britain's great property swindle.
Benefit cheats?
the bloke is a tool.
(I'm in favour of both increases to intelligent services and the emergency services btw)
*edit: I cant actually see the video so I'm not sure if it included all of what I said so here's the link to the video on the channel 4 website.
https://www.channel4.com/news/fallon-no-correlation-between-foreign-policy-and-this-appalling-act-of-terrorism
I bet Teresa May despairs at him but has to have him inside pissing out.
Jeremy Corbyn is using FA Cup Final day to launch plans to offer football fans a "flexible football ticket" to help more people attend matches. The proposal would mean fans aren't left with unusable tickets after matches are moved or rescheduled.
The Labour leader - who will be at Wembley later to support Arsenal - is also pledging more money for grassroots football if Labour wins power. The Conservatives have called Labour's proposals "nonsensical".
Nonsensical like every good point the opposition makes.
Apart from trying to suggest Jeremy Corbyn is only one step removed from Osama Bin Laden he avoided Brexit questions ( he is a lead Brexit negotiator) by saying he doesn't want to conduct negotiations in public which is a handy way of saying he wants a blank cheque. My sense is that he is clueless, he said the foreign nationals situation could have been settled ages ago, but he found some weasel excuse.
David Davis sometimes is portrayed as some kind of good bloke, but his naked salivating for power, for no end than to have power as heard on the wireless this lunchtime, made him seem like all of the rest of these trough snuffling Tories.
I wonder if Cameron would contemplate introducing his member to David Davis' mush.
Who could trust Corbyn? He trusts a woman who sometimes gets her sums wrong and once said something about Swedish nurses. What an idiot.