Paul Falcini

I wouldn't bank on that if I were you.

That sort of reasoning opens the way for attacks on pretty much every civilian population.

The perpetual victim true to form.

It's already underway in the Greens and will get worse as it has already allowed in many of the most factionally minded of former Labour members.

Gorton and Denton?

Are you serious?

Doesn't that large Green logo on the graphic rather give the game away?

Don't forget someone may have a comprehensive defeat without anyone having a comprehensive victory.

What's harmful social media and what is harmless social media? This is just posturing from a party that took useful parliamentary time to debate a minor honourary appointment made 25 years ago.

Your first question is a very good one as about 90% of British voters can't see what it is. It's mainly a home for people who can't stomach the Conservatives but are allergic to social democracy for no good reason.

Very little in common with the Greens and even less so with Polanski leading.

Yes, so many people think it's fine to condemn him and Labour for following their GE manifesto.

Loads of people's starting point is to blame him for who he isn't. They can't stand it that he's not Corbyn, that's he's led Labour into power when loads of people for no good reason were convinced that wasn't a thing anymore and he isn't a miracle worker who can instantly put the UK to rights.

Well at least I am not like Robert Jenrick and the rest of the recycled Tories.

Sadly that has never happened anywhere. Especially if you live by local agriculture you can never rest easy, weather and disease are merciless and unpredictable.

So your yardstick is anyone who appoints someone with a no case to answer disciplinary ten years ago is doomed?

Noting after seven years any such record in the Civil Service is deleted.

Who knows how many thousands of managers that applies to.

It isn't even a rule in this country where that hasn't been real earnings growth for almost the entire time between 2008 and now.

Because they were things he personally had done that weren't known about previously. No analogy to this situation.

The outcome of the case is widely known and a matter of public record.

How can the content of the old case be irrelevant? How is the PM affected by things that happened in 2022?

It's also absurd to suggest there are no other records of the case.

No it isn't, it's for them to get real terms earnings growth.

There's no rule that GDP growth benefits almost everyone.

Really, trying to revisit a 10 year old closed case with no new evidence?

It isn't if you own the safe.

This was 2022.

Do you know for certain that is actually done?

What are the journalist ethics in trying to relitigate 10 year old accusations with no new evidence?

As if their words are worth anything. Like the things they said about their defectors when they were Tories. To them it's all banter, meaningless.

Making lurid accusations against Streeting doesn't show he cares any more than I do.

As the data starts in well before the 2024 GE that's a yes. That and the lack of any causation link or sound statistics is why the attacks are so unjustified.

If they get really lucky they might get the telegram from the King at the same time as the notification from the DWP that the two child limit is being re-imposed on them because they or their partner has just lost their job as per Reform policy.

No major move is required, all that's required is that it becomes clear that so many Labour MPs have lost confidence in him that he can't carry on the business of government. So I think your timeline is just one hypothesis and that other scenarios are equally as likely.

He asked what I think, it wasn't my idea.