It's awful really. Any opposition party worth its salt should be hammering the government in the polls right now. I actually think Corbyn has some good qualities but leadership doesn't appear to be one of them.
I think the polling reflects the polarisation of political attitudes that has occurred in this country in recent times (the same seems to be happening in the US). The Labour party under Corbyn represents a real alternative to Toryism and is not afraid to call itself Socialist, but this will frighten a lot of people. A Tory-lite Labour would indeed be way ahead, but wouldn't change much when it gained power. I know which I prefer.
Do we trust the judgement of Steve Eisman? Who is Steve Eisman? He’s an investment banker who shorted investment funds and banks reliant on the corrupt sub prime bonds in 2007. In 2008 he made hundreds of millions of dollars for his firm and the world economy went tits up. He has consistently and strongly spoken out about poor regulation and fraud in the financial sector. He was the basis of Steve Carell’s character Mark Baum in The Big Short. He is currently shorting 3 UK banks (probably Metro Bank, CYBG - the Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks, and Virgin Money, which are the 3 most shorted UK financial institutions) and has a list of 50 others which he is preparing to short, probably including all big UK based financial institutions. He is assuming that Parliament will reject any deal May does with the EU and that Corbyn will form the next government. I wouldn’t bet against him. Shorting is a risky business, you have to be very confident or very reckless to do it.
Does eisman win every time. He shorts the banks We only ever hear of these people when they win big Very rarely the losses
He’s the managing director of a bank. He must be ****ing good because he is definitively an outsider and has been savage about his colleagues. I’m sure he makes mistakes, but, as I say, I wouldn’t bet against him.
Very high turnouts reported in the US mid-term elections, including amongst young voters. Could be good for the Democrats.
Indeed. It's baffling to me how any woman, or black person, or Hispanic, or Muslim, or anyone who can't afford healthcare, could possibly vote for Trump's Republicans.
There was a nice bit on one of the news programmes last night, an interview with a Texan (I think) bloke, who described himself as an unreconstructed libertarian right winger on everything. Until he got cancer and realised that he would be dead without Obamacare, and reviewed all of his opinions as a result.
Forgive me if I’m wrong but didn’t some in here say that the EU had no intention of wanting or forming a ‘European Army’ ?? After Macrons comments, and tommorows planned meeting I would think that’s exactly what they want.
That’s just Macron from France Doubt if he will last as his reforms in my region designed to save money have seen an increase in costs of 240% in three years Normal French people won’t allow that to happen watch and learn the difference between the U.K. just moaning about things and the French people that will act in force as they are already doing. The differences between the two cultures is staggering imo. I state again that the self obsessed U.K. no longer has any ability to stand up to the people who should be serving them. Most are too interested in just reading daily headlines and moaning. Slaves to the media just look at the interest at the leading story of the elections in the US currently... the home of the self obsessed that has infected us all Look how Brexit has been handled to the divide? All deflected control Trump this Trump that when there real issues in the world never reported to the lemon mainstream. European Army why not? It will be great for Europeans plus they can sell that service to the U.K. as we couldn’t fight our way out of a paper bag ... we have to always ask our big brother the US to help us out or even worse be seen to support their ideas of how to cock the world up
But it’s not just Macron is it though Paul. My point was that many said the thought of a ‘European Army’ was complete bullshit......when in fact it is anything but.
If EU members agree that they should have an army, what business is it of non members? With Trump in the Whitehouse they can’t rely on NATO. Steve Eisman looking on point, Starmer on the radio wriggled a lot but made it obvious that there is no possible EU deal that May can strike that Labour will support, because they are interested in forcing a general election rather than anything else. However, there might be enough sensible Labour MPs who care more about getting something done rather than following the Corbyn agenda who can counterbalance the bomb the EU tendency of the ERG and DUP. Big win for Trump in the mid term elections. His team did much better than Obama, Bush and Clinton B in their first term mid terms, and they all went on to be re-elected. So the politics of division and self interest are winning, the centre needs a new agenda.
Again? Ok, who cares if some blokes on a football forum predicted something wrongly (I don’t think I was among them, but if I was I stand corrected). What is your problem with an EU army, or are you more interested in crowing at mistakes made by other posters? Have you read V for Vendetta mate? It’s a blueprint for an anarchist revolution, very good.
I think many miss the point. I said some time ago that the EU had plans to build an army. I was told by a few that I was talking rubbish. I then repeated what I said after reading an article. Again I was told I was talking rubbish by the usual suspects. Once again, like on many occasions, they were wrong. However, It's not about being right or wrong but being mature enough to say "yeah he was right on that".
But what would be wrong with an EU army? We have sent on many occaisions "independant" forces to same locations/war zones, where the differences in quality of equipment and preparation of these, has led to very great and real logistics and capability issues, directly consequential to "allied" forces. Had a Dept. from 2008 - 2011 that was directly responsible for supply to the Norwegian and Danish troops in Afghanistan, visited the Camp Bastian compound and let's just say that ALL European allies there had "step up potentials". The Brits for example had completely different Artillery MM sizes - often provided by obsolete companies, machinery that was no longer in production and unable to share or loan from other friendly armies. The "armoured" tanks issue is already well known. Often, the ordering rationale for consumables by the Norwegains and Danes was questioned - and often it was over ordered taking into account the "loaning" that would go out to the Brits especially. The simple procurement, logistics and operational efficiency improvements would be daunting. So again, what would be wrong with the development of an EU army? Trump has another 6 years to go - suggest we get a move on, wouldn't you? Or do you prefer your politicos to be always at the beck and call of our "special relationship"? Oh, and suggest that this would be something half decent to sign up to - whether in or out of EU - or do you accept it OK for our boys to come back in body bags due to a lack of intelligent use of budgets, poor project planners, poor purchasing and Technical Depts? Note, not one of those Depts. are in the firing line!!
Bit of both really . (Please don’t get paranoid with the use of ‘again’....wasn’t aimed directly at you or anyone here, just followed on from a previous post) Personally I’m totally against a ‘New European Army’ as I think the money (billions I would estimate) would be better off being spent on helping the poor and needy of Europe than arming for war....but hey ho, that’s just me being simplistic again. V for Vendetta......a classic
