Qassändra

The difference being that NUCLEAR WAR ISN'T HAPPENING AS WE SPEAK! And there is no firm and solid evidence of the permanence of being on low welfare. I can testify to it not being an enjoyable existence at all, but it's not something that lasts forever once you're off it. Leaving the EU, with all the economic knock-on effects, is something that is going to last years. Not every bad thing automatically becomes equal just because they're all 'ideologies' - it's a little like saying 'okay, so you've got no money for healthcare in the US, but have you considered that someone else feels really strongly about KFC? The death of all those chickens is permanent'. You measure - funny this - on the basis of things like how many people something affects. How strongly affected those people are. How avoidable a given scenario is. How reversible it is. What the benefits of it in exchange for the downsides are. I consider campaigning to remain in the EU on a totally different level to something like workfare because I think in terms of sum losses to society (at *all* class levels), one is infinitely more damaging than the other. If you're at the bottom, paying a sizeable chunk more on literally anything that's imported as soon as the food futures supermarkets bought current products on expires is going to be far, far more damaging to everyone on the bottom and more acute in its severity for them than some people on long-term JSA working in a charity shop for notionally less than the minimum wage. You can't just dismiss that as 'ideology' or 'subjectivity' - it's something that *is* going to happen unless the pound rockets back up. You're not going to like it when it does, and you're definitely not going to like what the government would have done to make the pound rocket back up if it doesn't. And at that point when you consider 'what have we actually gained for all of this?', you'll understand why I consider this to be one of the most seismic events that we should have done everything in our power to prevent. And I don't even bloody LIKE the European Union all that much!

If the rules were changed by the NEC to 'stop Corbyn winning' they would have made him need nominations rather than be on the ballot automatically.

Yes. It is one set of polls by one firm. You just predicted a definite outcome as a result of one poll which goes against what pretty much every other poll has found, four months out from the election. Again: did you learn nothing from all the times you did this during the primaries and insisted it showed 'MOMENTUM' which made Bernie Sanders 'the inevitable nominee', only to lose by 3 million votes?

There's only one solution that I think would make the charts 'work' again: change it so that streaming a track ten times counts as a 'sale', but you can never contribute another streaming sale for that track again. Takes into account the popularity of streaming as a way of consuming music while also bringing the charts back in line with what they used to measure, and probably restores turnover in the charts to how it used to be.

A fall in the value of the pound causing an increase in the cost of imports is not a subjective opinion. It is mathematics. And it de facto hurts more people - literally everyone buys things that are imported. It is irreversible and, failing the kinds of policies that you aren't particularly amenable to being enforced in order to encourage people abroad to want to buy the pound, permanent. Except those policies would be to get us back to where we were *before* Brexit, not to add any gain on where we were to begin with. They can say that all they like. There is scarce evidence that Trident renewal will lead to another arms race (after all, we've had it for 60 years without it doing so). There is plenty of evidence or already existing proof that the first paragraph of my post will lead to its consequences. I am not willing to compromise on something that was both a. eminently winnable and b. had firm and solid evidence for its permanence in making pretty much everyone but the most well-off worse off for the next ten years, no.

Is adultery really grounds for unsuitability as PM? One of the nation's most popular hobbies, after all.

Did you learn nothing from chatting pure bullshit during the primaries?

When food futures roll over, the poorest will be facing a 20 percent hike in the cost of their weekly shop because of the collapse in the pound. If interest rates have to go up if we stay in stagflation, people who suffer a rent hike when their landlord has to pay extra to cover their mortgage each month will be the ones hit the worst. And of course, if companies decide to relocate to an EU country when it no longer makes economic sense for them to be based in a country where they can't trade by right with the rest of the EU anymore, plenty of secretaries, cleaners, and people employed by businesses that they buy things from will be out of a job. The effects of leaving the EU are absolutely not limited to a few middle class people losing perks. It is also, unlike general election rhetoric, a permanent decision which will translate into direct policy and cannot be shifted during the course of a government. It is only ideological to describe it as more seismic in the sense that 'more people will be hurt and it is not reversible' is an ideological basis on which to judge one policy as worse than another.

Yes, the knock-on effects of leaving the EU are solely limited to politicians going to Brussels summits.

Given adultery isn't even remotely a barrier these days, I imagine it's more likely it was a 'either you go or I do' situation with his wife.

Again, a one-off referendum (especially on such a seismic issue) is a slightly different circumstance for policy than the run up to a general election.

He's said Labour 'should make the progressive case against freedom of movement' and there were early whispers that he might have been the left candidate last year. I have a feeling the statement will disqualify him with the membership, but it seemed a little more up your street than it would be for most members.

Danny - what are your thoughts on Owen Smith?

I've been revisiting 2016 again for the last year and GOD it was a classic. On that note, WISHLIST for 2017 - Seinabo Sey with a thinly-veiled rewrite of her ballad version of - Mimi Werner going full-fat with an unashamed Rednex collab - Danny Saucedo with a half-baked Molly Sandén co-write - The ULTIMATE TRIAD OF DESPERADOS returning for FULL JUSTICE: Linda Bengtzing, Shirley Clamp, and Molly P-H for youth appeal - Saraha selling out with a transparent Western pop track with a bongo slapped on top - Lisa Ajax discovering the ability to project sex appeal and entering another sultry gem - Dolly Style with three totally different members again on a track written by Björn Ranelid - ISA back for revenge with a Kempe winner - dr. alban feat. Dinah Nah - THE RECKONING - Charlotte Perrelli on a Sarah Dawn Finer megaballad so she can finally redeem her name by making it to AC

At this point I think the only hope is for a candidate like Keir Starmer to come forward and give a proper plan for what Labour would do to make Brexit work for ordinary people. It's probably the closest thing Corbyn has to a blind spot (I can imagine him just talking in generalities on it) and it's something where there's the room for a proper competing Labour vision against the Tories.

We've still got freedom of movement to Dignitas right?

In the broader scheme of things when it comes to ministerial incompetence, appointing two people who were then found to have conflict of interest and then replaced is pretty small beer. The one where she tried to blame an error on the head in the Borders Agency a few years before was probably more damning.

'She hadn't won the leadership election yet' is a point you're holding against her?

The clown car that's the Tory Leave squad have shown themselves up since the result, but I honestly don't think there's a word that can be said against Theresa May on leadership and capability the last two weeks, aside from the immorality of the EU citizen bargaining chip move (and even then, that's basically her down to a T).

Again, this narrative you've set up doesn't really fit with Cameron and Osborne doing a similar land grab in last year's budget *before* Corbyn. Ed Miliband never promised to 'bring down pay' for the top private-sector bosses, but that isn't what Theresa May is promising either. Shareholders getting to vote on executive pay and workers being on company boards are the policies here - both were proposed by Ed and David respectively during their leadership campaigns, and workers being on remuneration boards was in the Labour manifesto last year! And again, you're seriously cherrypicking if you think 'all' Ed ever had to say about business was 'I applaud people getting filthy rich'. Laughably so.

I don't think Theresa offered her anything specifically. She probably - quite wisely - looked at how likely it was she'd get thrashed and thought she'd save her reputation by ducking out and letting a myth grow that it might have been close.

David Cameron to resign after PMQs on Wednesday.

Andrea Leadsom apparently about to quit the Tory leadership contest.

Osborne and Cameron were doing the exact same thing in terms of making Labourish noises *before* Corbyn was elected. It's called parking your tanks on the opposition's front lawn and obliterating them because you can, not responding to 'pressure from Corbyn' (which would be what exactly? The Tories are in bits and are *still* ahead of Labour. Do you really think Theresa May's doing this because she's waking up in a cold sweat at the threat from Corbyn?!). Incidentally, both of the things she's suggested were David Miliband policy in his leadership campaign and were mocked as weak beer by Ed supporters at the time, before we end up on a nonsense spiel claiming Theresa May is now more left-wing than Labour was before Corbyn.

Why do we *need* a Podemos? Who benefits from Labour's vote being split?